John Anderson
NSW Federal Government
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Gwydir
Back in March 2000 John Anderson had this to say after viewing Brian Harradine's porn screening. At the time he claimed to be fine with pornography, only the rating labels bothered him.
Quoted from:
Nationals backflip on erotica classification.
ABC The World Today 08.03.00
JOHN ANDERSON: Well, frankly it's pretty - I mean, have you seen it? Have you seen the stuff? You know, as - when forced to describe it, I notice the media described as "sexually explicit," looking for a way to describe it, which is an under-statement.
ALISON CALDWELL: Well, were you shocked, Minister.
JOHN ANDERSON: Well, the obvious answer is "yes."
ALISON CALDWELL: John Anderson says he supports the reforms included in non-violent erotica, he just doesn't like the name. Instead, he wants the label to read "non-violent pornography."
JOHN ANDERSON: Frankly, I believe that in terms of the comments made by the industry, and so forth, I was misled. I certainly support the reforms to ensure that violence and the depiction of children or misleading depiction of - that people make it, look like children, and so forth, ought to be pulled up. I support all of that, but I - you know, the bottom line for my party here is that people feel very strongly, even those who feel strongly that people ought to have the right to view what they like, that you have to tell people what it is. I mean, the way this thing would be classified, the next thing you'd know you'd have people saying, "Oh, well, it's nice, warm, cuddly stuff. Why can't we have a corner of it in the local video shop for it to be available?" Well, people need to know exactly what it is that they're getting.
***
In June 2007 the Howard Government sought to restrict Aboriginal access to hardcore pornography in the Northern Territory. Going one step further the ex-National Party leader wanted a national ban.
Quoted from
Ban all hard-core porn, says Anderson. The Australian 09.07.07
Mr Anderson, who has been lobbying within Coalition ranks to oppose the influx of pornography in indigenous communities, said X-rated material was damaging children across the nation.
“As Noel Pearson put it so beautifully, ask the children if they mind a bit of paternalism when they're cowering under the table,”
“You can't restrict that to just Aboriginal children. That plainly happens in non-indigenous communities as well as indigenous communities.”
Mr Anderson said the evidence was overwhelming that there are real and frightening links between porn and sexual violence.
“What you have here is a giant hypocrisy that no one has wanted to tackle.
“The minute it's questioned, the members who have questioned it are immediately targeted by the X-rated video industry lobby groups.”
Mr Anderson said that by banning pornography flowing into NT Aboriginal communities, the Howard Government had effectively conceded there was a link between watching the material and acting in dysfunctional ways.
“I think what comes out of this is we are now conceding that there's a problem with this stuff, and frankly I think that all Governments ought to have a long hard look at it again,”
“And we ought to say that civil libertarian arguments are not enough in the face of too many young Australian children's lives are being deeply scared even permanently and seriously damaged.”
Mr Anderson said that while he is no expert, he had been told by many experts that porn was like drug addiction.
He said NSW Aboriginal communities also wanted the pornography banned, and challenged the Iemma Government to take immediate action.
Michael Atkinson
SA State Government
Member of the Executive Council
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Croydon
In November 2002, along with the Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams, he managed to prevent the introduction of an R18+ rating for games.
Quoted from:
R-rated computer games ban to stay. The Age 08.11.02
In order to change the regime, all nine
attorneys would have to agree unanimously, so Mr Williams' opposition,
teamed with at least one other attorney - from South Australia - will
defeat the reforms.
***
Initially prevented IRREVERSIBLE from screening at the Adelaide French Film Festival in April 2003, but eventually relented. However, in May 2003 he gave the necessary backing to an AFA bid to have the R18+ rating reviewed. The June meeting of the Classification Review Board confirmed the R18+ rating.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 2 April 2003
FILM CENSORSHIP
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I seek leave to make a statement before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, representing the Premier and Minister for the Arts, a question on the subject of film censorship.
Leave granted.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Tonight the Premier and Minister for the Arts will open the French Film Festival which, as of late yesterday, will now include the film Irreversible. This follows the last-minute reconsideration by the Attorney-General of his decision in January to refuse to give the film an exemption from classification. As far as I am aware, this is now the second occasion in less than 10 months on which the Labor Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, has flirted with censorship of films screened everywhere else in Australia and overseas but not Adelaide. There may be other occasions, as well, of which I am not aware.
In a media release issued on 10 May 2002, the Attorney-General highlighted that, if the film Baise-Moi had been brought to his attention earlier following its R18+ classification the previous October, he would have `ensured it would never be screened in South Australia'. All honourable members will respect that, throughout the western world and possibly beyond, film censorship is regarded as a very serious matter. The Premier and Minister for the Arts must be acutely embarrassed by his Attorney-General's enthusiasm for censorship in film at the very same time that he is committing millions of dollars of South Australian taxpayers' money seeking to establish Adelaide as a base for an international film festival.
Incidentally, the Adelaide International Film Festival, which the Premier is promoting as the biggest in the southern hemisphere and possibly a rival to Cannes, is noteworthy in view of the fact that the film Irreversible was shown at the Cannes Film Festival last year without incident.
***
In June 2004 he again backed the AFA, this time in their bid to have ANATOMY OF HELL reviewed. In July 2004, the Classification Review Board confirmed the R18+ rating.
Quoted from:
Festival
boycott urged over film rating row. The Australian 01.07.04
"These people hate the classification
system. They hate having any system that restricts what they can do
according to the law ... the overwhelming majority of Australians, and
South Australians, don't want open slather for cinema."
Quoted from:
Call
for French film to be banned. ABC Lateline 06.07.04
"I am asking the Classification Review Board to
have a closer look and make sure they want this kind of thing screening in
Australian cinemas. I am not the expert and I do not wish to view these
films myself. I simply want the independent umpire to have a closer
look."
***
Thanks to Michael for sending in this correspondence he had with the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson. Considering the politeness of his letter, he received a bad tempered reply from Mr Atkinson.
27th July 2004
Sir,
With the utmost respect for yourself and your position I feel I must express my distress and disappointment with your recent position on censorship reviews, namely those of Anatomy of Hell and Irreversible.
I believe most Australians are able to make their own minds up, with appropriate ratings guidance from the OFLC. For example, I saw Irreversible and have no complaints, as I was aware due to its rating and warnings of the content within the film. Similarly I did not see Anatomy of Hell (as should be MY choice to see or not see a film), because from what I had read of the film it did not interest me. But let me stress I feel should any Australian decide they wish to see Anatomy of Hell, that ought be their choice.
As you are making these requests I’m sure that you have seen both of the films in question and that you would agree that in the case of Irreversible there is nothing within it that promotes or glorifies violence, sexual or otherwise, and I can not see how any individual could come of any other conclusion. The violence is no more glorified than it is in The Passion of the Christ, and neither of these films could be seen to promote it in any way.
I have no doubt that you have concerns for the Australian public should they choose to see these films. Please let me say as an individual whom has chosen to see one of them that censorship of this kind in any society sets a dangerous precedent and only serves to promote the film itself. Please voice your concerns as is your right, but I beg you do not stand in the way of intelligent Australians, as I’m sure you would agree we all are, right to make up their own mind.
20 September 2004
Film Classification
Thank you for your facsimile transmission of 27 July, 2004. You are concerned at any attempt to prevent consenting adults from seeing whatever films they wish, and, in particular, Irreversible and Anatomy of Hell. You do not think I should have asked the Review Board to review them.
I am sure you know that the classification of publications, films and computer games in Australia is achieved by a national co-operative system embracing the Commonwealth and all States and Territories. Under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, any participating Minister can require the Classification Review Board to review any film, by means of a request to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. This feature is an integral part of our national system. States and Territories agree to adopt the decisions of the Commonwealth classification bodies on the understanding that they can, if they wish, have particular decisions reviewed.
I see nothing wrong in my exercising the statutory authority given to all Ministers by the Commonwealth Act. I am a censorship Minister. That is, I am responsible to the people of South Australia for the operation of the censorship system in a way that, as far as possible, accords with public standards of morality, decency and propriety (to borrow a phrase from the Commonwealth Act), as embodied in the law and the guidelines. This may, from time to time, require me to request that the Review Board examine a contentious film. That is, after all, its job.
My request, or that of any other Minister, merely sets in train a process. It does not alter the classification of the film. That remains a matter for the relevant Commonwealth body, the Review Board. In each of the reviews, one member of the Review Board decided that the film should, if the guidelines were correctly applied, be refused classification.
It is true that the person who requests a review of the film need not have seen it. This is because that person is not called upon to classify the film. All that such a person needs to decide is whether the matter merits the attention of the Review Board. In considering whether it does, I read reviews of the film from around the world. I also take account of any material supplied to me by the person requesting a review. I may also look at the classification the film has received elsewhere. This material is usually sufficient for me to judge whether to ask the Review Board to see the film. In this case, I have not seen either of the films you mention. The O.F.L.C. classifies about 5,500 items every year and it is not a priority for me to watch dirty films, read dirty books and play violent computer games each day of my working life. If I had seen Irreversible or Anatomy of Hell before asking for a review, your attack would have shifted 180 degrees to "He watches the same dirty films he won't let us watch."
You are evidently against the banning of any film at all. You are entitled to this view, but it does not accord with our present law. Our censorship laws require that some films, including those that depict extreme violence, be banned. I believe those laws, adopted as they have been around Australia, reflect the standards held by most Australians. Some think that such material should be banned because it desensitises us to violence and so is immoral. Others think it models violence that may be later acted out and thus is dangerous. Others simply do not want a society in which the public exhibition of such material is accepted, any more than they want the streets to be full of litter. Accordingly, laws fixing limits have been made through a democratic process. Until the democratic process changes them, it is my duty to see that they are upheld.
New South Wales participates in the national system. If you think this system should be changed, you may wish to take this up with the New South Wales Attorney-General, the Hon. Bob Debus M.P.
Yours Sincerely
Michael Atkinson
Attorney-General
***
Thanks to Mick for sending in this correspondence he had with Mr Atkinson concerning an R18+ rating for games.
7 January 2005
R18+ Classification for Computer and Video Games
I refer to your e-mail of 29 December, 2004, about an R18+ classification for computer and video games.
The Standing Committee of the Attorneys-General considered a proposal to allow an R18+ classification category for computer games at meetings in July and November 2002. I opposed the creation of an R18+ category for games. The then Commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, also opposed the creation of this category.
The MA15+ category already covers game content, including violence and coarse language, that is of such strong impact that it justifies legal restriction to persons over 15 years of age. I see no need to create a higher category, that would make still more sexually explicit, violent and offensive entertainment available. I am also concerned that it may prove difficult to keep such material out of the hands of minors.
You tell me that an R18+ rating is going to be introduced eventually and why not make it sooner? You are quite mistaken. The proposal to create an R18+ category for games could not proceed without the support of all Attorneys-General. Thus, the sale of R18+ games will remain illegal in Australia.
You tell me that people will and do import banned games and ask why we make it harder for them. Were we take your approach for every law that is flouted we would soon be living in an anarchistic society, a situation that nearly every South Australian would consider untenable.
From views expressed to me, I believe I speak for many South Australians on this matter. I have received far more letters and e-mails of support for my position than I have criticising me for it.
Thankyou for sharing your thoughts with me.
Yours Sincerely
Michael Atkinson
Attorney-General
22 June 2005
R18+ Classification for computer games
I refer to your further e-mail of 15 May, 2005, again urging me to support the creation of an R18+ category for computer games. I will not.
It is true that this accords with my personal beliefs, but I think it also, and more importantly, reflects the wishes of most South Australians, and parents in particular. A wide range of strong-impact material, including strong violence, is permitted in games in the MA15+ category. I see no public benefit in making available even stronger material. The small benefit to adult games like you, in the form of convenience or enjoyment, must be weighed against the hight risk that such material will fall into the hands of children and other vulnerable people, where it may do harm.
Yours Sincerely
Michael Atkinson
Attorney-General
***
He was back again in July 2005, this time helping the AFA and the Festival of Light to challenge the R18+ awarded to MYSTERIOUS SKIN. In August 2005, the Classification Review Board confirmed the R18+ rating. Three films, three failures.
Quoted from
US
censorship debate brews. ABC Radio: PM Program 19.07.05
"Yes, I'm in favor of moderate censorship.
I don't think a how-to manual of sexual abuse against boys ought to be
screening in our cinemas."
***
In 2004 the Classification Board gave Michael Winterbottom's 9 SONGS an overly restrictive X18+ rating. The distributor appealed, and in 2005 it was dropped down to R18+ for theatrical release. In August 2005, the South Australian Classification Council increased it back up to X18+, effectively banning it for sale/hire within the State.
Quoted from:
SA goes it alone with 9 Songs DVD banSouth Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, a regular campaigner on censorship issues, labelled the OFLC's change of mind perverse and complained to the federal government.
***
In May 2006 South Australian Family First MLC, Dennis Hood, called for the Sony Pictures Home Entertainment DVD of THE BROWN BUNNY to be banned. The film had been rated R18+ and contained a scene of real fellatio.
Quoted from:
Sex movie 'should be X-rated'. Adelaide Advertiser 04.05.06[Mr Hood] called on the Attorney-General Michael Atkinson to order a review of the film's classification status.
Mr Atkinson yesterday said it was too late to reclassify The Brown Bunny.
"This film was released in 2003 and was classified by the Classification Board last year and it is now not possible for its classification to be reviewed by the Classification Review Board," Mr Atkinson said.
***
At the July 27th 2006 meeting in Melbourne of the Attorneys-General, Michael Atkinson proposed further restrictions on computer games. The Federal Attorney General Philip Ruddock had this to say on the proposal.
Quoted from:
States cave in on Ruddock's book curbs. SMH 28.07.06On books of hate, Mr Ruddock pointed to the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, proposing restrictions - which did not proceed - on computer games which Mr Atkinson claimed incited graffiti.
"And yet when it comes to something that goes to people's … very safety and security [state attorneys-general] step back and say, 'Oh, we wouldn't want to interfere with somebody's freedom of speech,"' Mr Ruddock said before yesterday's meeting.
***
Atkinson put the issue of graffiti on the table at the 2005-2006 Standing Committee of Attorneys General Censorship meetings. His proposal was to make it even easier to ban films, games, and books that feature graffiti. Luckily this was voted down at the 2006-2007 meetings.
Annual Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2005-06
Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship)"In response to a request from the South Australian Attorney-General a proposal to lower the threshold of the RC guidelines to deal with graffiti crime, was added to the agenda."
Annual Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2006-07
Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship)" Ministers in relation to RC Guidelines and Matters of Crime:
Graffiti expressed their views on a proposal to expand the current guidelines so that matters portraying crime in a favorable light would be refused classification, with a majority expressing opposition to the proposal. Ministers agreed to remove this item from the agenda.***
In late February 2008 it was announced that the March SCAG meeting would discuss the introduction of an R18+ for games. It didn't take long for Michael Atkinson's opposition to become known.
Quoted from:
Attorney-general opposes R rating for games. news.com.au 27.02.08.... a spokesperson for Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General, has confirmed that he will maintain his long-running opposition to the proposed system.
"The Attorney-General remains very firmly opposed to introducing an R rating for computer games in Australia," the spokesperson said.
Minister Atkinson would not consider an 18+ rating even if there were measures to protect children from being exposed to adult content, the spokesperson said.
"He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our society, from being able to access material."
Quoted from:
R rating for games dismissed as 'porn'. news.com.au 29.02.08South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has reaffirmed his opposition to an R rating, which would prevent the full consensus required for legislative change.
A spokesperson for attorney-general Atkinson confirmed he will not consider an alternative solution to change federal legislation.
"He is of the view that he is no longer a lone voice among Australia's attorneys-general in opposing this view," the spokesperson said.
"He will vigorously resist any attempts to see the classification changed to allow what he views as computer-generated pornography and depictions of extreme violence."
***
On March 6th 2008 Atkinson made a speech outlining his opposition to a games R18+. The person who asked the question is the John Rau, ALP member for Enfield. The three MP's who interject are Mr Kris Hanna, Independent for Mitchell, Mr David Pisoni, Liberal for Unley, and Dr Duncan McFetridge Liberal for Morphett.
South Australia
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 6 March 2008COMPUTER GAMES CLASSIFICATION
Mr RAU (Enfield) (14:32): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General inform the house whether he will support moves to introduce an R rating classification for computer games sold in Australia, or will games that are unsuitable for minors continue to be refused classification?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:32): The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia has repeatedly put to attorneys-general that there ought to be an R18+ classification for computer games. Unlike films for which there are R18+ and X18+ classifications, the highest classification for computer games that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing or playing by persons under 15 years is MA15+. I do not know what Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke rating was when it was released, but it is certainly being played out here by the member for Heysen, as she is trying to save the bong. She is bonging on. But that is something for the next Liberal Party meeting when parliament comes back. I wonder how the Hanna amendment will go down in the Liberal party room.
Mr Hanna: You better be careful what you say outside the parliament.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Chong has always been a vexatious litigant: he cannot help himself.
Mr Hanna interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is the vibe. It is just the vibe, for the member for Mitchell. Computer games that exceed the criteria needed for an MA15+ classification must be refused classification and cannot be sold, hired, demonstrated or advertised in Australia. Nevertheless, thousands of games are available to computer game buyers and only a few are completely banned under this system. I have consistently opposed an R18+ classification for computer games.
Mr Pisoni interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, member for Unley, they can download child pornography if they want to; it will just be against the law. I am concerned about the harm of high impact, particularly violent computer games, to children. Games may pose a far greater problem than other media, particularly films, because their interactive nature could exacerbate their impact. The risk of interactivity on players of computer games with highly violent content is increased aggressive behaviour.
I do not want children to be able to get their hands on R18+ games easily. I understand that the lack of an R18+ classification denies some adults the chance to play some games; however, the need to keep potentially harmful material away from children is far more important.
Proponents for the classification say the latest technology allows gaming platforms and computers to be programmed to allow parental locks. Today's children are far more technologically savvy than their parents. It is laughable to suggest that they could not find ways around parental locks if R18+ games were in the home.
I have mentioned that, despite there being thousands of computer games available to consumers—more computer games than you can play in a lifetime—only a handful are banned. I want to give some examples of games refused classification in Australia, because I am certain that fair-minded people would not want the kind of content in them to be available to children.
Blitz: The League was banned in January 2007. It is an American football game in which players prepare teams and play through a season. It was banned because in the course of the game the player may use illegal performance enhancing drugs for the members of his or her team. The player can also fake urine samples to avoid positive drug tests.
Reservoir Dogs was banned in June 2006. This game is based on the Reservoir Dogs movie, and players are participants in a bank robbery. They can blow the heads off hostages and police, as well as execute hostages at point blank range with a gunshot to the head. They can also torture hostages by pistol whipping the side of the head, burn the eyes of a hostage with a cigar until they scream and die, or cut the fingers of hostages. There are blood bursts as the victims scream in pain.
50 Cent: Bulletproof was banned in November 2007, and I notice that some of the Gang of 49 wear 50 Cent T-shirts when they are on their escapades. The game's central character is the rap star, 50 Cent, and he seeks revenge for the killing of his former cell mate. It was banned because the killing in the game was prolonged and took place in close up and slow motion. It included a lot of on-screen blood spatter when the killing was done with knives. Just to show, for the member for Unley, that the system does work, a censored version of the game was released later with an MA15+ classification.
Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was banned in February 2006. In this game players make names for themselves by using graffiti. They join gangs and compete with rival gangs and the police force. This game was banned because it promotes breaking the law by vandalising public buildings with graffiti. Worse, the central character acquires his knowledge of graffiti tips, techniques and styles from real graffiti vandals who pass on those details. It actually instructs players on how to become graffiti vandals.
Narc was banned in April 2005—no, not narc, member for Unley, as in narcotics. In this game players try to defeat an underground drug trafficking and terrorist organisation. Nevertheless, the game contains frequent drug use. Players can choose to take illegal drugs including heroin, speed, LSD, marijuana and ecstasy, and those drugs provide the player with benefits in progressing through the game. For example, when a player takes an ecstasy tablet, opponents will stop attacking and allow the player's character to escape. Similarly, taking speed allows the player's character to run faster and catch opponents. I have not been persuaded by arguments for an
— Dr McFETRIDGE: A point of order, Mr Speaker: I am concerned for the Attorney's reputation. He might be providing an online catalogue for people who want to buy these games.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
As you can see, he was interrupted midway through, and did not complete the speech. News.com.au did however receive a copy of the rest of the speech from his office.
Quoted from:
Games ratings speech cut off in parliament.
news.com.au 06.03.08Narc was banned in April 2005. In this game, players try to defeat an underground drug trafficking and terrorist organisation. Nevertheless, the game contains frequent drug use. Players can choose to take illegal drugs including heroin, speed, LSD, marijuana and ecstasy and those drugs provide the player with benefits in progressing through the game. For example, when a player takes an ecstasy tablet...
At this point Mr Atkinson was interrupted and returned to his seat. The following is the rest of his speech as provided by his office.
... opponents will stop attacking and allow the player's character to escape. Similarly, taking speed allows the player's character to run faster and catch opponents.
I contest any idea that it is necessary for games to include material of this kind and that a game is more interesting to an adult because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material, instruction in crime or characters using illicit drugs. I remain firmly opposed to changing the classifications of computer games to allow an R-rating for games with such content.
This is a carefully considered position I have held for six years and other attorneys-general around Australia may now be coming to the same view. There are not adequate safeguards that can properly protect our children from those disturbing scenes and I know how computer-literate they are. Like other parents in Australia, I want to try to protect children from being able to access computer-generated pornography and violence.
I have not been persuaded by arguments for an R18+ classification for computer games and I will continue to oppose it.