These are achieved by
creating a distinction between the advisory classifications (‘G’, ‘PG’
and ‘M’) and the legally restricted classifications (‘MA 15+’, ‘R18+’
and ‘X18+’) through the inclusion of age references in the names of
the restricted classification types and the removal of age descriptors
from the advisory classifications (G(8+), M(15+)).
The change to the
names of the classification types does not affect the type of material
that is permitted within each classification. The type of material
that is permitted within each classification is assessed by the
Classification Board and the Classification Review Board using the
criteria set out in the National Classification Code (‘the Code’) and
the relevant guidelines.
The amendments to the
Act complement the Guidelines for Films and Computer Games which
commenced operation on 30 March 2003.
Consequential
amendments to the Code are necessary as part of the transition to common
classification types. These amendments, which have been agreed to by
the Commonwealth and all States and Territories, will come into effect at
the same time as Schedule 1.
Under the national
classification scheme, the enforcement of classification decisions is the
responsibility of the States and Territories. Accordingly, each
jurisdiction has enacted complementary classification enforcement
legislation. All States and Territories support the Bill and have
agreed to make the consequential amendments to their classification
enforcement legislation. It is anticipated that the introduction of
State and Territory legislation will follow passage of the Bill.
The Bill also makes
consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (‘the
Broadcasting Services Act’) to update references to the classification
types to reflect the amendments to the Act. These include references
in relation to classification of programs and films and the regulation of
online content. The consequential amendments do not affect the
requirement for certain codes of practice made under the Broadcasting
Services Act to apply the film classification system administered by the
Office of Film and Literature Classification, including but not limited to
the new classification types. This will ensure common classification
types across television and the entertainment media products that are
classified under the Act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
The Bill will not result in any change to the net asset position for the
Commonwealth. In particular, the amendments will not result in a loss of
revenue or any reduction in the cost of operating the Classification
Board, Classification Review Board and the Office of Film and Literature
Classification. Hence, no changes in operating expenses will result.
******
Date: Attorney-General portfolio
Source: House
Private: No
Bill number: 04040
Database: Bills
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of
Australia
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Presented and read a first time
Date: 24 March, 2004
Database: House Hansard
Page: 27006
Speaker: Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP, Government) Mr
RUDDOCK (Berowra—Attorney-General) (9.15 a.m.)
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer
Games) Amendment Bill 2004 (the bill) will make a number of
procedural amendments to the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the
classification act).
The classification act is part of the Commonwealth's contribution to the
national cooperative classification scheme agreed to by the Commonwealth
and the states and territories, which commenced on 1 January 1996. All
state and territory censorship ministers have indicated their support for
the changes proposed by this bill.
The national classification scheme assists consumers to choose films and
computer games by assigning a classification and consumer advice to
classified products.
The bill merely renames the existing classification types and does not
affect the criteria used to classify films and computer games.
Classification decisions are made in accordance with section 11 of the
classification act, and with the National Classification Code and the
classification guidelines.
Both the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines
will require amendment to reflect the changes to the names of the
classification types. However, the changes will be procedural in nature
and will not otherwise affect the criteria used to classify films and
computer games.
However, the amendments will improve the operation of the national
classification scheme in two main ways.
First, the amendments will implement common classification types for both
films and computer games.
These amendments follow and complement the recent changes to the
classification guidelines agreed to by the Commonwealth and the states and
territories.
The combined Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer
Games, which came into operation on 30 March 2003, replaced the previously
separate Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes and
Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games.
Submissions to the review of the previous guidelines indicated that
members of the public sought clear and easily understandable
classification categories and supported the creation of a single set of
classification symbols for films and computer games.
Similar conclusions can also be drawn from research commissioned by the
Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC).
In a study conducted in March 2002, 71 per cent of people agreed that the
same classification symbols should be used for films and computer games.
This research indicated that there are poor levels of awareness of the
computer games classification scheme. For example, the study found that
only 43 per cent of the population are aware that classification of
computer games is undertaken. This contrasts dramatically with the 97 per
cent awareness of the film classification symbols.
Bearing in mind the results of this research and the fundamental policy
objective of a universal classification scheme, the bill introduces common
classification types for films and computer games based on the well-known
film classifications. This will significantly assist consumer decision
making regarding classified products.
The new common classification types for films and computer games will be
known as G, PG, M, MA15+ and RC. R18+ and X18+ classifications will apply
only to films.
The second major purpose of the bill is the creation of a more effective
distinction between those classification types that are advisory in
nature, being G, PG and M, and those to which legally enforceable
restrictions apply, being MA15+, R18+ and X18+.
This distinction will be achieved by the removal of age references from
the unrestricted classification types and use of age references for the
restricted classification types only. This distinction will also assist
consumers to identify the relative hierarchy of classification types.
Given the substantial difference in the material permissible in the
advisory and restricted classifications, this amendment is expected to be
of great assistance to consumers, particularly parents. It will also help
address some of the confusion currently experienced about the difference
between the M and the MA classification types.
The Attorney-General's Department and the OFLC have consulted extensively
about the proposed changes. Since November 2003, consultation meetings
have been held with consumers including parents, film exhibitors, film
distributors, computer games distributors, home entertainment
distributors, generalist retailers, specialist retailers, the video, DVD
and computer games rental industry and television. The government
responded to the issues raised during that consultation process.
The bill makes consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act
1992 (the Broadcasting Services Act). The provisions of the Broadcasting
Services Act apply the classification system administered by the OFLC to
television codes of practice, Internet content and datacasting.
Within the Broadcasting Services Act there are references to particular
classification types. Such references are amended by the bill to ensure
consistency between the OFLC classifications and their application and use
on media regulated under the Broadcasting Services Act.
The amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act do not change any of the
regulatory requirements under that act. For example, restrictions on the
times that material classified MA can be shown on television will apply to
both programs already classified as MA as well as those that will, after
the commencement of the proposed amendments, be classified MA15+.
Following passage of the bill, the Director of the Classification Board
intends to determine, under section eight of the Classification Act, new
markings for films and computer games.
The markings prescribe the classification symbol and description that goes
with each of the various classification types and specify the requirements
about the display of classification information. This includes, for
example, the size, location and duration of symbols, classification
descriptors and consumer advice on classified products and related
advertising.
In recognition of the potential impact of these changes on industry,
particularly cinema, retailers and video stores, it is proposed that the
new determination of markings will enable products classified prior to the
commencement of the proposed amendments to carry the old classification
marking or the new classification marking. Any products classified after
commencement of the proposed amendments will be required to carry the new
markings.
During development of the bill, most stakeholders expressed strong support
for a common classification system across all media. This was consistent
with the OFLC research findings. Therefore the government is keen to see a
common approach based on the determination of markings issued by the
director.
In particular, for computer games, films and programs classified MA15+,
the government expects consumers to be informed that such products are not
suitable for people under the age of 15—which is the defining feature
that this new classification, under the National Classification Code,
exhibits.
The government also expects the OFLC and television to continue to work on
the development of consistent messages.
The OFLC will conduct national education activities to ensure the
community understands the new classification types. These activities will
raise awareness of all the classification types.
Under the national classification scheme, the enforcement of
classification decisions is the responsibility of the states and
territories. Accordingly, each jurisdiction has enacted complementary
classification enforcement legislation.
Implementation of the proposed amendments will also involve amendments to
state and territory legislation. It is anticipated that the state and
territory legislation will follow the passage of this bill.
Consequential changes will need to be made in the National Classification
Code as part of the transition to common classification types. These
amendments have been agreed in principle by censorship ministers and will
be formalised prior to the bill's commencement. In accordance with the
requirements of the 1995 intergovernmental agreement on censorship, the
amendments to the code will then be tabled in both houses of this
parliament.
The principal purpose of the national classification scheme is to inform
the choices of consumers. The simple amendments made by this bill, in
conjunction with public education activities by the OFLC, will go a long
way to better meeting the important objectives of the scheme.
I therefore enthusiastically commend this bill to the House and table the
explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.
******
Date: 01 April Debate resumed from 24
March, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Date: 01 April, 2004
Database: House Hansard
Page: 28085
Speaker: Roxon, Nicola, MP (Gellibrand,
ALP, Opposition)Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (9.57 a.m.)
I would like to speak on the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004 and
indicate Labor's support for the proposed changes to the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act. It is really a
welcome development in this area. In the community a lot of concern is
expressed over our classification system. I believe we have a very good
classification system. Certainly if you look around the world you will see
that we are lucky that our classifications are largely well understood and
adhered to.
The bill before us today will bring into line the classification systems
that apply to films and to computer games. It is going to be a very useful
tool, particularly for parents who are keen to ensure that they exercise
some control and guidance over their children and the sorts of material
their children will be using. It is difficult for parents to ascertain
what level of violence, sexually explicit material or other sorts of
matters that come within our classification systems are in computer games
in particular, and we are in a world where they are changing quickly. This
is raised with all of us every now and again when we are in the community
and in our electorate offices. It is welcome that this bill seeks to make
the classifications in the film area, which are perhaps better understood,
apply consistently to video games.
The major change deals with making `a more effective distinction' between
the advisory classification types G, PG and M and those where a legally
enforceable restriction applies: MA15+, R18+ and X18+. I think that the
reference to age in the legally enforceable classifications gives parents
some sort of guidance. It makes clear to children and young adults what is
appropriate for them to view and gives a little bit of consistency so that
people do not have to understand what the classification categories mean
for video games as opposed to what they mean in the film area.
I had a discussion with a colleague of mine yesterday about this bill—she
has a child who is 14. She said it would be the most effective thing to be
able to say, when telling him he cannot see a film that he wants to go and
see, `You know, if you go to the cinema they'll ask you for your
identification or your age and you won't be allowed to go in.' She said
she did not have that confidence with video games and so was very pleased
that this bill would ensure that a restriction would apply to some of the
potentially damaging materials that most people in the community would
prefer to see mature adults dealing with rather than young children. She
said that having a legally enforceable cut-off point in some of these
categories would be useful to parents as a way of encouraging their kids
to use appropriate material. It will also be useful to have the backing of
some enforceability and to be able to say, `Actually, you're not going to
be allowed to buy those,' or `You're not going to be able to get into the
cinema.' I guess we have to be realistic: young adults are pretty good at
getting around some of these guidelines and it is difficult to see how we
can stop some of them seeing material that is not appropriate for them,
but I think these guidelines and changes will assist.
It is true that as a result of this bill there will be no change to what
is classified in a particular way—so there is no suggestion that the
classification guidelines themselves will be altered—but there will be
some consistency in the labelling of material so people can understand
what is meant by a classification. I am also pleased that the government
has indicated that, along with changes to the act, there is an intention
to more widely discuss what the different classifications mean and to
encourage others in their obligations to conduct broader community
education on this issue. I think that is welcome; I think it would be
welcome with the existing classification structure, but now that there is
to be consistency across film and video games it makes it even more worth
while because a bit of a blitz education campaign or advertising material
would be really helpful.
I note that initially there were some concerns expressed by the commercial
television industry about what the new requirements would mean for the
showing of MA15+ material on TV. I understand that some of their concerns
have been worked through and that because there is, as I understand it,
also going to be a review of the code of practice there may be an
opportunity to take up those issues. Obviously, it is in everybody's
interest to make sure that the classification structures are actually
workable. Whilst the parliamentarians in this House and parents in the
community will not always share 100 per cent the interests of the
commercial television associations or film distributors, it is worth while
for us to make sure that we have discussions with them about practical
ways to ensure that these classification structures have meaning for
parents—that when a warning is issued before a film starts on TV it
needs to give families, young adults, parents and others watching a clear
indication of what it is they are going to see.
I must say my personal view—and it is not an issue that is really dealt
with by this bill—is that it would also be helpful for TV viewing if
some of those classifications and warnings were shown a little more
regularly throughout the film. I think it is not a realistic expectation,
because of the way we live our lives, view TV and do all sorts of other
things, that everybody will be there at 25 past eight when the film
starts. It might be preferable if there were some way of making those
classifications more widely noticed. Often just the logo is there and I
think this ties back in with the need to make sure that the
classifications are widely understood; so that if you do see the new MA15+
classification you understand what that means and whether it is
appropriate for your children to watch that sort of film.
It is good that confusion is going to be removed as a result of this bill.
It will be helpful not just for consumers—although that is the primary
consideration that we in this parliament have—but also for distributors,
broadcasters and others who run video stores and sell computer games to
have some consistent application as well. I note that this is the result
of discussions and agreements that have been reached with the states and
territories. I understand that it will be necessary for the states and
territories to implement some changes by introducing complementary
legislation to support this bill and that they have the primary role of
ensuring that the classification structure is adhered to. Some of the
issues that I am concerned about are not reflective of there being any
particular inadequacy in this bill. It will fall to the states and
territories to make sure that the implementation is as effective as it can
be.
There is nothing more that I want to raise regarding the bill other than
that I understand that there will need to be a transitional phase-in.
There is going to be some provision made for existing material which has
already been marked with the old classification structure. There obviously
will be some phase-out time, which is appropriate, and there should not be
any problem with there being a short phase-in time. I understand that the
Office of Film and Literature Classification is to carry out a national
public awareness campaign to draw attention to the revised classification
types. I urge the House to take an interest in that.
It is of growing importance to the community to make sure that, without
unnecessarily censoring the material that adults are able to see, we have
clear guidance available to our children and young adults. Frankly, as
adults, we want to be able to choose whether we see films that contain
violence, sexual activity or other things. The more information we have
and the more easily as adults we can make choices about the sort of
material that we want to view or the games that we want to use, the more
that is in everybody's interests. It is particularly for children and
young adults that these classifications will have an impact. I commend the
bill to the House and indicate Labor's support for these changes.
******
Date: 01 April, 2004
Database: House Hansard
Page: 28087
Speaker: Baird, Bruce, MP (Cook, LP,
Government)Mr BAIRD (Cook) (10.07 a.m.)
I am very happy to follow the member for
Gellibrand. I note the opposition's support for the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004, and
appropriately so; it is a non-controversial piece of legislation which the
community in general will support. I support the member for Gellibrand's
comments on the regular indication of the classification of particular
films. It is unlikely that viewers will be present at the very beginning
of the showing of a film, so regularly showing the level of classification
is worthy of pursuit.
The bill brings computer games into line with film classifications. It
ensures that, when computer games are sold, parents have a clear guideline
of whether such games meet various criteria and what their appropriate
classification is. It is important to note that the classification for
X-rated films does not apply to computer games, and rightly so because of
the ease with which they are obtained and young people's access to them.
The predominant aim is to bring computer games into line with film
classification and to ensure that we do not have X-rated computer games
depicting violence or showing explicit scenes which would readily be
available to young people.
I believe it is a sensible way of classifying. It is appropriate that
there has been some discussion with the community about the way the films
should be classified. I am aware, on the straight suitability of films,
that there are many people who are not necessarily prudish in terms of
films but who certainly take exception to extreme violence. They want to
be aware, if they go to see a film, that the classification is right. They
want to be aware that it does contain violence or explicit sexual scenes.
They want to be aware so they can make an adult choice as to whether or
not they wish to view them. But its predominant assistance is to parents,
because our aim is that young people do not have access at too early an
age to pornography, scenes of violence—particularly the ultraviolence
that is often displayed—or sadomasochism. That is something that we
simply want to avoid in the publications, films and computer games that
our young people are seeing.
This bill will amend the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 and will assist
in a more fluid operation of the classification scheme. The aim is to make
a common classification scheme for films and computer games, as I have
said. The bill will not alter the type of material permitted within each
classification group; it will merely bring the two classification schemes
into one. There is a more effective distinction between the class types.
For example, the G, PG and M classifications will stand for film and apply
to computer games. For classes where legally enforceable restrictions
apply, there will be a reference to the specific age—for example, MA15+,
R18+ and X18+. Of course, as I have said before, you do have R18+ and X18+
for films, but for computer games the highest classification will be MA—for
mature adults—15+.
The bill will help make classifications easily available to parents and
give a clear, distinct hierarchy to the classification of films. The bill
does not deal with publications; they are not classified in the same way
as films and computer games. It will also give effect to the agreement by
the Commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers to change
classification laws to better inform the community about strong materials
in films and computer games. The bill also does not affect the Commercial
Television Industry Code of Practice, nor does it affect the importation
of publications, films or computer games. Imported products remain subject
to classification prior to release in Australia.
By way of background, there are two main pieces of legislation which
oversee the classification of publications, films and computer games—the
classification act and the broadcasting act. Descriptions of the products
which would fall within the classifications are contained in the National
Classification Code. For example, the code sets out the level of depiction
of sex, violence and other issues which would cause a film to be
classified as G, PG, M et cetera. The criteria for classification are also
contained in the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer
Games. The broadcasting act deals with program standards for broadcasting
primarily for commercial television. It permits radio and/or television
industry groups to develop codes of practice relating to broadcasting
standards and provides that, in developing codes of practice, the industry
must take into account community attitudes to issues such as violence,
sex, offensive language, drugs—including alcohol and tobacco—and the
depiction of gender and ethnicity.
It is a bill that both sides of the House agree to. It does bring the two
classification schemes together in terms of films and computer games. It
is a useful guide to parents. It is not a question of the government
introducing more restrictive guidelines but rather providing a useful
means for young people to be guided on publications, and of course it
provides a clear indication to those who run video shops and who lease and
sell computer games that they must abide by those requirements.
The ready availability of pornographic films to young people and imported
computer games which are also available through the black market are of
concern. We want our young people to develop a healthy attitude towards
sex and personal relations, and this is one aim of such a classification
system. We also want to ensure that they do not see depicted excessive
violence, which can lead to them simulating that behaviour in the streets
of Australia. This is a sensible and worthwhile approach, and there have
been extensive public discussions on this issue. I commend the bill to the
House.
******
Date: 01 April, 2004
Database: House Hansard
Page: 28088
Speaker: Ciobo, Steven, MP (Moncrieff,
LP, Government)Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (10.16 a.m.)
It is pleasing to note that the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004 is one
of those bills for which there is bipartisan support. It is an important
bill because it is at the centre of the type of government regulation we
would like to see in this country. That applies especially to the
coalition insofar as one of the most concerning problems for many in the
community is the different regulations, different levels of regulation and
inconsistent standards about content that the government applies. This
unfortunately was the situation that applied to the differentiation
between film classification and computer games classification.
There is a growing convergence between the games industry and the films
industry. We are seeing many games modelled on films and vice versa. One
example is the highly successful film series The
Matrix, which quickly developed into a computer game. In reverse,
the computer game Lara Croft Tomb Raider—which
I am sure you are very familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley—came
from the computer game industry first and was then transferred into a
film.
Many people rely on the operation of government and the agencies that are
charged with making the appropriate classification of films and computer
games. Parents rely on them because in today's time-poor society parents
do not have the opportunity to perhaps sit down and watch a film or play a
computer game to deem whether it is suitable or otherwise for their
children. If it were not for the classification system, parents would be
required to do this if they wanted to be good parents. If parents wanted
to determine whether or not something was suitable for their children,
they would need to ensure that the computer game or film was appropriate.
Of course, that is not feasible, and that is why government need to send a
clear message that we take the time to look at and make an informed
decision about the appropriate classification of a computer game or film.
In this regard, parents need to have confidence that they can rely upon
the classification that is given to a film or a computer game. The fact
that there was previously an inconsistency between the two classification
types applying to films and computer games meant that it would sometimes
be a little confusing for parents to make this decision. I am very pleased
that the bill before the chamber today deals with minor amendments to the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. These
amendments seek to bring classifications into line so that you have a
uniform standard that applies both to computer games and to films.
The existing classifications for films are the ratings of G, PG, M, MA, R,
X and those that are refused classification. To the corollary, the
existing classifications for computer games are G, G8+, M15+, MA15+—there
is no R or X category—and those that were refused classification. Now
the two are coming together. We will now have one uniform standard which
will apply—that is, G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, X18+ and RC, which is the
refused classification. The benefit of this is that you have the one
uniform standard. The introduction of MA15+, R18+ and X18+ means that
there are now legally enforceable age thresholds which will apply to both
films and computer games. This is a fairly uncontroversial piece of
legislation, and I have pretty much touched upon all the areas that I
sought to cover, but I will go on while I wait for the parliamentary
secretary to come into the chamber.
I would like to assess in more detail the various points of this bill. It
ensures that we help to protect those aged under 15, for example, from
exposure to unsuitable material. It is most concerning, I am sure, for
many parents to walk in and see their children playing a computer game or
watching a film which they would deem to be unsuitable. It is very
important that there is a comprehensive and detailed list of material
available so that parents can make informed decisions about what their
children are watching.
I turn my mind to one game in particular, which I know has been
controversial of late: Grand Theft Auto.
I have had the benefit of seeing and playing Grand
Theft Auto, because I am a firm believer in and supporter of my
local computer games industry, which, incidentally, is in fact bigger than
the film box office industry. This highlights the way that society is
changing as computer games become more and more popular. Grand
Theft Auto caused a lot of controversy when it was released
because it dealt with a number of fairly violent, some would say, aspects—in
particular, in this game players steal various cars and drive them around,
and this often leads to situations such as beating people up or driving
over them in their vehicles.
Understandably, this caused some concern for many parents, but the point I
would raise is that this game is targeted towards a specific age group
only. It is a game that, like many films, is targeted towards a mature age
group—people that can differentiate between simulated violence, for
example, that they might see when playing a computer game versus other
violence that occurs in the real world. It is important that we do not
seek to impose a government enforced mandate about what is appropriate or
inappropriate but rather that we try to ensure that people have actual
information about whether a game might be appropriate for the intended
audience. That really is the point, because classification of films and
computer games is largely built upon providing information to families and
parents, as well as to customers.
Classification operates in parallel with our need to ensure a strongly
enforced system for the sale of such products. There is no point, quite
frankly, in appropriately classifying films and computer games if we then
do not ensure the enforcement of the sale of these products. There is
little point in classifying a film X-rated or R-rated, or indeed MA15+ for
a computer game, if there is no enforcement of the market to which these
products are sold. This is a two-pronged approach. If, for example, an
X-rated video is readily and widely available to children, then that
classification obviously serves no benefit whatsoever. There must be a
strong enforcement of classifications in terms of sales, because that is a
fundamental aspect.
I note that the member for Gellibrand said that she was of the view that
the bill will give parents greater control and confidence about what is
appropriate for their children, particularly young adults, to see. This
applied, in particular, in respect of the legal restrictions that might
apply to MA15+ material. I am very pleased that this is the Labor Party's
position, because it is consistent with the Liberal Party's position, and
that is always a good outcome. I heard the member for Cook speak about
this bill, highlighting the fact that the very last thing we would want to
do is ensure that there is a prevalence of violent material made available
to our children. The reality is that we do not want our children to see
unnecessary levels of violence nor, indeed, unnecessary levels of sexual
material in film and on TV. In that respect, it is very important that
this new code applies. I notice that the member for Franklin is
particularly keen to speak on this bill, so I will wrap up my comments
there. I commend the bill to this chamber. It is a good bill. It ensures
that we have consistent and uniform legislation. I am very pleased to
support it.
******
Date: 01 April, 2004
Database: House Hansard
Page: 28090
Speaker: Quick, Harry, MP (Franklin, ALP, Opposition)
Source: House
Proof: No
Stage: Second Reading
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Main Committee: Yes
Mr QUICK (Franklin) (10.25 a.m.)
I, like other speakers in the chamber today, congratulate the government
on this initiative. I think it makes real commonsense. It obviously has
bipartisan support. A couple of issues came to mind as I listened to the
debate this morning. One of those is the suggestion by the member for
Gellibrand that we should have a continuous classification logo on movies.
We see that WIN TV, in particular, have their little logo for the
duration. I am not too sure whether or not it is to discourage you from
videotaping whatever is on television, but I do think that a continuous
classification logo on movies would be a great idea.
One thing that worries me is that the explanatory memorandum says that
states and territories are going to pass complementary legislation. I
would be interested to find out what the time frame for this is. Knowing
some of the states and territories as I do, they have got such a backlog
of legislation and they meet so infrequently that one wonders whether this
is going to take 18 months, two years; whether there is a time frame for
Commonwealth and state agencies to sit down and work this out.
Another thing that worries me is, when you go into video stores, whether
these new 15+ computer games are going to just be up there with
bestsellers, top rating things, or whether there is going to be a discrete
section in the video stores of 15+ video games, so that young kids do not
wander in. If you visit a video store, as I do reasonably infrequently,
you find it is just a great big barn. There is stuff all over the walls
and people wander around. You are grabbed only at the end, when you rock
up to the counter with whatever you have got. There is no real perusal of
whether you are there looking at MA15s and you are eight years of age and
scanning what is on the box. I would be interested to know who is
monitoring this, whether there is going to be a discrete 15+ section for
computer games.
As I say, this bill has bipartisan support. As federal members, each and
every one of us will be alerting our constituents through our newsletters
to the changes that have been proposed in this Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004. I
congratulate the government and the minister for doing this. It is
interesting that the original bill was in 1995 and, in less than 10 years,
we are now aligning both films and computer games. People, when they
introduced the original 1995 bill, did not realise the way computer games
were going to take over many people's lives. For most of the young people
that I am in contact with, much to their educational edification, these
computer games are taking over their lives. Some people are even saying
that our thumbs are going to be more useful than our fingers. I again
congratulate the government, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
the bill this morning.
******
Date: 01 April, 2004
Database: House Hansard
Page: 28091
Speaker: Slipper, Peter, MP (Fisher, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Finance and Administration, LP, Government)
Source: House
Proof: No
Stage: Second Reading
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Main Committee: Yes
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (10.30 a.m.)
I would at this stage like to thank all of those honourable members who have
spoken on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games)
Amendment Bill 2004. As members of parliament we often get pilloried for
appearing to disagree on everything, but every so often—in fact,
more often than people appreciate—we do find a unanimity of purpose and a
oneness of aim, and that is represented by the way in which all honourable
members have supported the very positive improvements included in this
particular bill.
The Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Amendment Bill makes a number of procedural amendments to the Classification (Publications,
Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The bill merely renames the existing
classification types and does not affect the criteria used to classify films and
computer games. The amendments will improve the operation of the national
classification scheme by lifting the profile of the computer games
classifications and making the distinction between the advisory and legally
restricted classifications clearer. The amendments will be of great assistance
to all consumers, and particularly parents. The confusion currently experienced
about the difference between the M and MA classification types should be
addressed by the changes to the names of the classification types in conjunction
with education activities by the OFLC and the use of consistent classification
information by all sectors, including television. Amendments to state and
territory classification enforcement legislation will closely follow the passage
of this bill. Consequential changes to the National Classification Code have
been agreed in principle by censorship ministers and will be formalised prior to
the commencement of the bill.
The member for Franklin in his speech congratulated the government, and I thank
him for those worthy words. He pointed out that this particular bill is
commonsense. We note his view that there should be classification on movies
continuously. This is an issue for the determination of markings. States and
territories are committed to making amendments to complementary legislation, and
the passage is expected in about 12 months. I also note that the member for
Franklin suggested that there should be a discrete section in video stores for
15+ classified computer games. As the member for Franklin would be aware, video
store placement of games is not an issue for the Commonwealth. Maybe that is a
matter that could be taken up with the various censorship ministers in the
states and territories. As a parent myself, I see a lot of worth in the
suggestion made by the member for Franklin.
The member for Cook, in his usual bipartisan way, welcomed the support of the
opposition for this noncontroversial bill, and he supported remarks made by the
honourable member for Gellibrand in favour of more frequent classification
information on television. He noted that the X rating does not apply to computer
games and saw that as being sensible. He pointed out that there had been
appropriate consultation with the community—and there has been appropriate
consultation. The government always prides itself on seeing what the community
wants and trying to reflect community standards and attitudes.
As the member for Cook said, issues related to TV codes of practice are not
addressed by the bill. Comments by members in respect of classification
information on television will undoubtedly be noted by Commercial Television
Australia and the Australian Broadcasting Authority. In my view, it would not do
any harm to bring some pressure to bear on those particular organisations. The
important point has been made that everyone can use classifications to make
viewing choices, especially with respect to violence. The member pointed out the
extensive consultation that has taken place. I do note concerns regarding
potential access to restricted products by children. This is actually a state
and territory matter, and again this is one of those situations where we need
the states and territories to act as well.
The member for Moncrieff also noted the bipartisan support for the bill and
spoke very strongly with respect to his support for its provisions. Parents use
the classification system to make choices regarding films and computer games for
kids. Parents are not in a position to make informed choices without
classifications, and I think that is an important point to be noted.
The shadow Attorney-General, the member for Gellibrand, pointed out that Labor
supported the bill. I think she said that it was a welcome development and a
very useful tool, especially for parents. As the member said, this bill will
give parents greater control and confidence about what is appropriate for their
children, particularly young adults, to see, and particularly in respect of the
legal restrictions about MA15+ material. As the honourable member noted, the
government wants TV and the OFLC to keep discussing consistent classification
messages for TV, films and computer games. Various industry groups, consumer
groups and community organisations around the country have contributed to the
policy and, on behalf of the government, I express my appreciation of their
involvement. The collective wisdom that has emerged from those consultations has
given effect to the provisions of this bill, which I now commend to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
******
Date: 01 April 2004
Proof: No
Source: House
Page: 1578
Database: Votes & Proceedings
Main Committee: No
CLASSIFICATION
(PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 2004—REPORT FROM
MAIN COMMITTEE
The Deputy Speaker reported that the Bill
had been fully considered by the Main Committee and agreed to without
amendment, and presented a certified copy of the Bill.
Bill agreed to.
On the motion of Mrs D. S. Vale (Minister
for Veterans' Affairs), by leave, the Bill was read a third time.
******
Date: 11 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 22769
Speaker: Macdonald, Sen Ian (Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation,
LP, Queensland, Government)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: First Reading
Type: Procedural Text
Context: Bill
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland—Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and
Conservation) (4.58 p.m.)
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together.
After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I
will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice
Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without
formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
******
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND
COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Date: 11 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 22769
Speaker: Macdonald, Sen Ian (Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation,
LP, Queensland, Government)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: Second Reading
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland—Minister
for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) (4.58 p.m.)
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The
speeches read as follows—
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS,
FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 2004
The Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Amendment Bill (the Bill) will make a number of procedural
amendments to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games)
Act 1995 (the Classification Act).
The Classification Act is part of the
Commonwealth's contribution to the national cooperative classification
scheme agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, which
commenced on 1 January 1996. All State and Territory Censorship Ministers
have indicated their support for the changes proposed by the Bill.
The national classification scheme assists
consumers to choose films and computer games by assigning a classification
and consumer advice to classified products.
The Bill merely renames the existing
classification types and does not affect the criteria used to classify
films and computer games. Classification decisions are made in accordance
with section 11 of the Classification Act, and with the National
Classification Code and the classification guidelines.
Both the National Classification Code and
the classification guidelines will require amendment to reflect the
changes to the names of the classification types. However, the changes
will be procedural in nature and will not otherwise affect the criteria
used to classify films and computer games.
The amendments will improve the operation of
the national classification scheme in two main ways.
First, the amendments will implement common
classification types for films and computer games.
These amendments follow and complement
recent changes to the classification guidelines agreed to by the
Commonwealth and the States and Territories.
The combined Guidelines for the
Classification of Films and Computer Games, which came into operation on
30 March 2003, replaced the previously separate Guidelines for the
Classification of Films and Videotapes and Guidelines for the
Classification of Computer Games.
Submissions to the review of the previous
guidelines indicated that members of the public sought clear and easily
understandable classification categories and supported the creation of a
single set of classification symbols for films and computer games.
Similar conclusions can also be drawn from
research commissioned by the Office of Film and Literature Classification
(OFLC).
In a study conducted in March 2002, 71% of
people agreed that the same classification symbols should be used for
films and computer games. This research also indicated that there are poor
levels of awareness of the computer games classification scheme. For
example, the study found that only 43% of the population are aware that
computer games are classified. This contrasts dramatically with 97%
awareness of the film classification symbols.
Bearing in mind the results of this research
and the fundamental policy objective of a universal classification scheme,
the Bill introduces common classification types for films and computer
games based on the well known film classifications. This will
significantly assist consumer decision-making regarding classified
products.
The new common classification types for
films and computer games will be known as G, PG, M, MA15+ and RC. R18+ and
X18+ classifications will apply to films only.
The second major purpose of the Bill is the
creation of a more effective distinction between those classification
types that are advisory in nature (being G, PG and M) and those to which
legally enforceable restrictions apply (being MA15+, R18+ and X18+)
This distinction will be achieved by the
removal of age references from the unrestricted classification types and
use of age references for the restricted classification types only. This
distinction will also assist consumers to identify the relative hierarchy
of classification types.
Given the substantial difference in the
material permissible in the advisory and restricted classifications, this
amendment is expected to be of great assistance to consumers, particularly
parents. It will also help address some of the confusion currently
experienced about the difference between the M and the MA classification
types.
The Attorney-General's Department and the OFLC
have consulted extensively about the proposed changes. Since November
2003, consultation meetings have been held with consumers (including
parents), film exhibitors, film distributors, computer games distributors,
home entertainment distributors, generalist retailers, specialist
retailers, the video, DVD and computer games rental industry and
television. The Government responded to the issues raised during that
consultation process.
The Bill makes consequential amendments to
the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Broadcasting Services Act).
Provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act apply the classification
system administered by the OFLC to television
Codes of Practice, internet content and datacasting.
Within the Broadcasting Services Act there
are references to particular classification types. Such references are
amended by the Bill to ensure consistency between the OFLC
classifications and their application and use on media regulated
under the Broadcasting Services Act.
The amendments to the Broadcasting Services
Act do not change any of the regulatory requirements under that Act. For
example, restrictions on the times that material classified MA can be
shown on television will apply to both programs already classified as MA
as well as those that will, after the commencement of the proposed
amendments, be classified MA15+.
Following passage of the Bill, the Director
of the Classification Board intends to determine, under section 8 of the
Classification Act, new markings for films and computer games.
The markings prescribe the classification
symbol and description that goes with each of the various classification
types and specify the requirements about the display of classification
information. This includes, for example, the size, location and duration
of symbols, classification descriptors and consumer advice on classified
products and related advertising.
In recognition of the potential impact of
these changes on industry, particularly cinema, retailers and video
stores, it is proposed that the new Determination of Markings will enable
products classified prior to the commencement of the proposed amendments
to carry the old classification marking or the new classification marking.
Any products classified after commencement of the proposed amendments will
be required to carry the new markings.
During development of the Bill, most
stakeholders expressed strong support for a common classification system
across all media. This was consistent with OFLC
research findings. Therefore the Government is keen to see a common
approach based on the Determination of Markings issued by the Director.
In particular, for computer games, films and
programs classified MA15+, the Government expects consumers to be informed
that such products are not suitable for people under the age of 15 - which
is the defining feature of this classification under the National
Classification Code.
The Government also expects the OFLC
and television to continue to work on the development of consistent
messages.
The OFLC will
conduct national education activities to ensure the community understands
the new classification types. These activities will raise awareness of all
the classification types.
Under the national classification scheme,
the enforcement of classification decisions is the responsibility of the
States and Territories. Accordingly, each jurisdiction has enacted
complementary classification enforcement legislation.
Implementation of the proposed amendments
will also involve amendments to State and Territory legislation. It is
anticipated that the State and Territory legislation will follow the
passage of this Bill.
Consequential changes will need to be made
in the National Classification Code as part of the transition to common
classification types. These amendments have been agreed in principle by
Censorship Ministers and will be formalised prior to the Bill's
commencement. In accordance with the requirements of the 1995
Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship, the amendments to the Code will
then be tabled in both Houses of Parliament.
The principal purpose of the national
classification scheme is to inform the choices of consumers. The simple
amendments made by this Bill, in conjunction with public education
activities by the OFLC, will go a long way
toward better meeting the important objectives of the scheme.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23081
Speaker: Greig, Sen Brian (AD, Western Australia, Opposition)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: Second Reading
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator GREIG (Western Australia) (12.51
p.m.)
The Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004 makes
two changes to Australia's classification regime. Firstly, it will require
computer games to be classified in the same way as films according to the
same classification categories that apply to films. The Democrats welcome
this change but we do not believe it goes quite far enough. We support the
move towards a more uniform classification regime. It makes sense to have
the same classification names for different genres. This will simplify the
classification regime and make it more easily understood by the general
public.
While there are some mandatory age restrictions that apply to
classifications such as MA, R and X, the other classifications are
advisory only. The whole purpose of those classifications is to enable
people to make informed choices about what they or their children watch,
so it is vital that the community is familiar with the names of each of
the classifications and what they mean. I believe that the Australian
community is now fairly familiar with the classifications which apply to
film and television. But why restrict these classifications to film and
television only? This bill goes some way to addressing this issue by
extending film classifications to computer games. The Democrats support
this extension of the classification regime.
The constant advances in computer technology mean that we now have games
that are essentially interactive films. It makes sense to subject this
genre to the same classification as television and film. When choosing
computer games people should be able to take the classification of those
games into account. This is, of course, particularly important for parents
and guardians concerned about their young children.
But the point that the Democrats would particularly like to make is this:
why stop at computer games? Why hasn't this extension of the
classification regime been applied to publications as well? If people can
make informed decisions about what films or television programs they
choose to watch or what computer games they choose to buy and play, why
shouldn't they also be given the opportunity to make informed choices
about what books they choose to read? Perhaps the minister or the
parliamentary secretary can indicate whether the government has perhaps
considered moving towards a uniform classification regime for all genres
including books and, if not, why not? Why is this bill restricted to
computer games only?
The second aspect of this bill is to make some minor amendments to the
names of classification types. These changes are intended to highlight the
distinction between advisory classifications which are advisory and those
such as MA, R and X which incorporate mandatory age restrictions. The bill
seeks to change the names of these mandatory classifications to MA 15+, R
18+ and X 18+ respectively. Other classifications, namely, G, PG and M,
will remain unchanged. The Democrats do not oppose this change. We note
that it does not involve any change to the scope of these classifications.
The classifications which will have their names changed already involved
mandatory age restrictions and they will continue to have them after the
enactment of this bill. What the bill does is simply change the names of
those classifications so that they reflect these age restrictions. Again,
this change will help individuals make informed decisions about what they
choose to watch. Notwithstanding our concerns, as indicated by the
questions I have raised with the secretary, the Democrats will support
this legislation.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23081
Speaker: Harradine, Sen Brian (IND, Tasmania, Opposition)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: Second Reading
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.55
p.m.)
I note that the main effect of the Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004 will be to ensure common
classification types for films and computer games to assist people to have
a deeper and more understandable system of classification. This will be
achieved by adopting the film classifications. On the surface that seems
to be a good idea and pretty well accepted round the traps. There have
been questions asked about these matters of the department over a period
of time. But, upon examination, it turns out to be a turn for the worse if
certain things do not occur. This would be both because the film
classification system is flawed and because the nature of computer games
is such that they allow repetitive and reinforcing actions. The repetitive
nature of computer games can reinforce violent images and actions. There
is enough violence in the place without more. This means that computer
games should have stronger classification standards and not weaker ones.
There cannot be such a thing as an R+ computer game, and as for the other
classifications I will deal with those at the committee stage.
Senators may be aware that late last year state, territory and
Commonwealth ministers changed the 1996 film classification guidelines to
what the Attorney-General told me, as a result of estimates questions, is
`simplified and streamlined' so they can be `more workable and
transparent' about the tests the board must apply. In short, there is a
plain English set of guidelines, which I have in my hand. I first started
to worry about the new guidelines last year when my plain English reading
of them told me that the substance and meaning of the guidelines had in
fact changed. But I was told that if I interpreted these supposedly plain
English guidelines correctly that was not the case.
Later in November of last year the state, territory and Commonwealth censorship
ministers issued a communique in which they stated their agreement to
change classification laws to `better inform the community about strong
material in films and computer games'. Unfortunately, that commitment has
already been brought into question. Rather than better informing the
community about film content, changes in classification laws have led to a
liberalisation in the censorship and a great
deal of confusion about what the standards are.
Early last year the Attorney-General's Department informed me that the R
classification, amongst others, had recently been changed to the new
streamlined format. I was assured:
The general rule will ensure that there is
no change in classification standards in the R category.
In explanation of one of the `more workable and transparent' tests the
department told me:
Sexual activity may be realistically
simulated. The general rule is: simulated, yes; the real thing, no.
You would think that that would be a fairly easy test to apply. The 1996
guidelines state:
Sexual violence may only be implied and
should not be detailed.
The new streamlined 2003 guidelines state:
Sexual violence may be implied, if justified
by context.
A significant change, I would have thought, in allowing violent content,
but I was assured that there was no practical change. Last year the
Classification Board approved the screening of a film called Irreversible.
The Classification Board notes:
This film includes a brief depiction of
actual fellatio.
But the rule `simulation, yes; the real thing, no' was not applied and the
film was allowed a classification of R. The Classification Board also
noted the impact of an anal rape scene in the film, stating:
The impact of this anal rape
scene is high due to the lengthy real-time depiction, with a considerable
amount of verbal and visual detail.
Again, an effective change has been made to the classification guidelines,
despite the assurances of the department, to allow a film with a horribly
violent, lengthy and detailed scene into the R classification. Sexual
violence depicted in the film was indeed detailed and went beyond being
implied. This is very disconcerting when we are faced time and time again
with violent sexual crimes. The type of material that can be allowed—given
the experience with the film Irreversible—is
material containing a substantial degree of sexual violence. The
Attorney-General has assured community organisations that he was
`confident that the combined guidelines do not change the classification
standards that were applied under the previous film guidelines'. We now
know that that is not the case.
I acknowledge that computer games will not be allowed if they have a
classification higher than MA, but the value of the exercise has to be
called into question when the film classification system is so
discredited. Computer games are by their very nature different from films.
Playing computer games is an interactive activity, while watching a film
is a passive activity. Computer games can reinforce a violent message, as
the player can undertake a simulated violent act multiple times in order
to perfect it and succeed in the game or simply because there is the
opportunity.
Computer games are constantly being made more realistic in their depiction
of the virtual world. It is quite natural that undertaking repetitive
simulated violence has the effect of dulling the revulsion we naturally
feel towards violence. It can help to create and then to reinforce an
attitude more accepting of violence. That is why computer games are very
different from films and should be treated as such. I know that there are
provisions in the code which talk about certain things to be taken into
consideration, but this is a subjective judgment. I believe that the
system is such that material which was disallowed under the 1996
guidelines in certain circumstances is obviously allowed now, even though
there is great concern in the community about the level of violence in the
community.
I was very interested in what some of my colleagues in the House of
Representatives said. I understand their statements, and I hope that their
confidence in what is occurring with this legislation and what is
occurring in general is seen to be worth while. My colleagues in the House
of Representatives saw fit to deal with this legislation, which is
designed to ensure common classification types for films and computer
games to assist people in recognising the particular classification. That
is fine, and I understand why they praised the legislation, but once they
see some of the problems that are emerging as a result of the decisions
that have been made by the Classification Board they should take a look at
them. They should look particularly at the example that I gave and ask
these questions: why did this take place? Why does it appear, on the face
of it, that this film would not have got through with the classification
that it got under the previous guidelines? Those questions have not been
answered. There are a number of other things that I want to raise, but I
do not want to keep the chamber. I would require a committee stage debate
to deal with those matters.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: Speaker: Troeth, Sen Judith (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, LP, Victoria, Government)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: Second Reading
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator TROETH (Victoria—Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (1.08
p.m.)
I thank honourable senators for their
contributions to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004 . I will deal with Senator Greig's
comments in a moment, and I am happy to attempt to answer the questions
that Senator Harradine has raised. This bill makes a number of amendments
to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.
The bill merely renames the existing classification types and does not
affect the criteria used to classify films and computer games.
The bill will improve the operation of the national classification scheme
in two ways. First, the amendments will implement common classification
types for films and computer games. Research indicates a low level of
awareness of computer games classifications, at 43 per cent; and a high
level of awareness of film classifications, at 97 per cent. By using the
same classifications for films and computer games we will substantially
increase the ability of parents in particular to chose computer games for
their children. Second, the bill will create a more effective distinction
between the advisory and legally restricted classifications. There is
substantial difference in the material permissible between the advisory
and restricted classifications. The bill creates a clear distinction
between these classifications through the inclusion of age references in
the names of the restricted classifications only.
The amendments will be of
great assistance to consumers, particularly parents, in making informed
choices about the appropriateness of film and computer games for
themselves and their families. The omission of the schedule to the act
does not affect the legal status of the National Classification Code,
which under section 6 of the act is the code approved by ministers and
published in the Gazette. The
version of the code in the act is obsolete. The removal of the schedule
which contains the obsolete version of the code will enhance the
readability of the legislation and remove the risk of confusion caused by
the current situation. Amendments to state and territory classification
enforcement legislation will closely follow the passage of this bill.
Consequential changes to the National Classification Code have been agreed
in principle by censorship ministers and will
be formalised prior to the bill's commencement.
I will briefly deal with the matters raised by Senator Greig. His first
point was that this bill does not go far enough. Under the national
classification scheme all substantive policy matters are agreed by
Commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers
and, in the case of legislation, by relevant parliaments. Ministers have
not considered the application of the film classifications to
publications, although Senator Greig's suggestion is worthy of further
consideration and the government will seek to raise this issue with
ministers. If ministers agree to pursue this matter, appropriate
consultation will need to precede any legislative amendment.
I will move to some of the matters raised by Senator Harradine. The bill
does not affect the content of the classifications in the guidelines for
the classification of film and computer games. The guidelines will be
reprinted prior to the commencement of the bill, as the reference to old
classification categories will need to be removed. With regard to
interactivity and computer games, issues of interactivity are dealt with
in the guidelines themselves and include such matters as repetition. The
longstanding direction from censorship
ministers that computer games are to be assessed more strictly due to
their interactivity is unchanged and is given effect through the
guidelines. Pages 4 and 5 of the guidelines discuss the assessment of
impact. Page 5 specifically states: `Impact may be higher where a scene
... encourages interactivity.' This part of the guidelines has the effect
that, in classifying a computer game, the board must take into account
interactivity. Because in practice interactivity most frequently arises in
the context of computer games, the outcome is that games are classified
more strictly.
The notion that films and computer games should have different
classifications because of interactivity is misguided. Interactivity is
not of itself a sufficient reason for distinguishing between the two
products. Parents want a simple and more easily understood classification
system. Common classifications for films and computer games address this
issue. As I have already said, research indicates a low level of awareness
of the computer games classification scheme and a high level of awareness
of the film classification scheme. By using the same classifications for
films and computer games we will substantially increase the ability of
parents in particular to choose computer games for their children. We
believe this greater understanding by consumers of the classifications for
computer games, combined with the specific references to interactivity in
the guidelines and the provision of appropriate information and
protection, will enable them to make informed choices about computer games
for themselves and their families.
Senator Harradine also made some specific comments about the film Irreversible.
The Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are
independent statutory bodies that classify films, computer games and
certain publications under the national classification scheme. The boards
are selected to be broadly representative, as far as possible, of the
Australian community. When classifying films or computer games, the
Classification Board uses the criteria in the National Classification Code
and in the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.
The Classification Review Board was established under the Classification
Act to provide an independent and transparent mechanism for merits based
review of decisions of the classification board. In making its decision to
classify Irreversible, the board
considered the criteria in the Classification Act, the National
Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and
Computer Games. As I said, the act requires the board to be broadly
representative of the Australian community. The board noted that `the
themes of rape, revenge and violence are portrayed and dealt with in such
a way that they may be offensive to some sections of the adult community
but were not offensive to the extent that the film warrants refused
classification'.
I understand that Senator Harradine wants to take the bill to the
committee stage, but at this stage I will commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23084
Speaker: Harradine, Sen Brian (IND, Tasmania, Opposition)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: In Commitee
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator HARRADINE
(Tasmania) (1.16
p.m.)
I have a question in relation to the
last matter of the board being the authority and everything being
transparent. As I understand it, a request is made to the federal
AttorneyGeneral by a state AttorneyGeneral about the classification of a
film. What is the role of the federal AttorneyGeneral? For example, I
understand that the South Australian AttorneyGeneral has, in respect of
the film Irreversible, made a
request to the federal AttorneyGeneral. Could the parliamentary secretary
advise the committee as to what stage that has reached and what is
happening to that request?
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23084
Speaker: Troeth, Sen Judith (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, LP, Victoria, Government)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: In Commitee
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator TROETH
(Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry) (1.18 p.m.)
Yes, you are quite right, Senator
Harradine, the AttorneyGeneral from South Australia did write to the
federal AttorneyGeneral. The statement on this matter and the
classification of the review board was that they would not have made a
different decision. The AttorneyGeneral at the Australian government level
has written back to the South Australian AttorneyGeneral asking him
whether he wishes to proceed further with the matter, and as yet we have
not received a response.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23084
Speaker: Harradine, Sen Brian (IND, Tasmania, Opposition)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: In Commitee
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (1.18
p.m.)
What is the attitude of the
Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral with respect to this matter? Here is a matter
that has been raised by a number of people concerned with not only the
fact that this has occurred but the precedent that it sets. We have all
been concerned about sexual violence, for example. How can it be explained
away that the guidelines in 1996 stated `Sexual violence may only be
implied and should not be detailed' whereas the new guidelines state that
`sexual violence may be implied, if justified by the context'. That is a
significant change, which has allowed for rather lengthy depictions of
sexual violence in the film Irreversible.
Surely the AttorneyGeneral must have a view of the matter. I do not know
whether this change occurred under the previous AttorneyGeneral or the
current one—presumably it was the previous AttorneyGeneral. What is the
current AttorneyGeneral's view of the matter?
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23084
Speaker: Troeth, Sen Judith (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, LP, Victoria, Government)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: In Commitee
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator TROETH
(Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry) (1.20 p.m.)
As I indicated to Senator
Harradine,
we are at present awaiting a response from the South Australian
AttorneyGeneral. If the AttorneyGeneral in South Australia wishes to have
a review, the review will proceed. The Attorney has considered his own
power to have a review. At this stage he does not intend to have a review
of his own volition; he will await the response from the South Australian
AttorneyGeneral.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23084
Speaker: Harradine, Sen Brian (IND, Tasmania, Opposition)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: In Commitee
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
I cannot take the matter any further than that. I go to another question,
which I think the parliamentary secretary answered in her second reading
speech, concerning item 15 of the schedule. The explanatory memorandum
states:
This item repeals the Schedule to the Act
which contains an out-of-date version of the National Classification Code.
I have a couple of questions: if it contains an outdated version of the
National Classification Code, an up-to-date version of the Classification
Code could be incorporated in this legislation. Why not do it that way so
that the National Classification Code is included in the legislation?
Furthermore, if this legislation goes through unamended—and I understand
that you cannot have an outdated classification code remaining in the
legislation; the simple way to do it would be to put the up-to-date code
in there—and there are amendments to the National Classification Code,
what is the legal effect of the National Classification Code not being in
this legislation? How will amendments to the National Classification Code
be dealt with? Will they be dealt with by gazettal or by amendment to the
legislation? Could we have some clarification on that before we vote for
the excision of the National Classification Code from the legislation?
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Page: 23084
Speaker: Troeth, Sen Judith (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, LP, Victoria, Government)
Source: Senate
Proof: Yes
Stage: In Commitee
Type: Speech
Context: Bill
Senator TROETH (Victoria—Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (1.23
p.m.)
As I have already indicated to Senator Harradine, the code is the code
that is approved by ministers. It is changed by ministers, it is published
in the Gazette and it can change
at any time.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
******
Date: 13 May, 2004
Database: Senate Hansard
Senator TROETH (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (1.24 p.m.)
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
