Greg Donnelly

NSW State
Member of the Legislative Assembly
Australian Labor Party

In May 2005 he spoke out against the bill that would have seen X18+ legalised in NSW.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL

Page: 4 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 May 2005. 

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [2.58 p.m.]: I oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which is sponsored by the Hon. Peter Breen. The object of the bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995: 

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and 

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and 

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material. 

In my view—and I believe in the view of many others—material classified as X 18+ is hard-core pornography. To sanitise this material by calling it "non- violent erotica", as was tried a few years ago, simply does not wash. Material that is rated X 18+ does not contain any physical sexual violence but it treats women, and in some cases men, as sexual commodities. 

If anyone has any doubts about the content of the material I recommend they read the 2003 discussion paper from the Australia Institute titled "Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the extent of exposure and likely effects". The co-authors are Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton. Pages vii and viii of the summary chapter provide a particularly graphic explanation of what is contained in typical X 18+ videos. Reading the explanation reminded me of a quote from the New South Wales Parliamentary Library research service 2003 briefing paper titled "X Rated Films and the Regulation of Sexually Explicit Material". Chapter 4.3 deals with the debate about X 18+ videos in New South Wales in the mid-1980 and at page 11 it says: 

There followed a screening in the NSW Parliamentary theatre of a video compiled by the Film Censorship Board depicting representative scenes from a range of video classifications. Around 40 NSW parliamentarians attended the screening, some of them walked out early. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Nick Greiner and Paul Lander left early, looking decidedly queasy". 

The briefing paper noted that while reiterating his Government's commitment to non-censorship, Neville Wran, who was then the Premier, said categorically: 

There are certain things that are beyond the pale. 

I suggest to honourable members that those words are as relevant today as they were then. I was somewhat surprised when on 26 May the Hon. Peter Breen, through a question without notice, effectively speared the plan of two members of this Chamber to show a cross-section of material that is currently the subject of the debate. He can answer for himself as to why he did it, but I suspect that he does not want politicians to see first-hand exactly what is in the material that is the subject of the bill. In light of missing out on our film review, let me quote some excerpts from the Flood and Hamilton discussion paper I referred to above. For those with a weak stomach, now might be a good time to check their messages on their mobile phones. The discussion paper stated in part: 

A typical X-rated video shows a series of scenarios, each lasting for anywhere from the few minutes to half an hour 

… It then oulines a list of common practices. The paper further stated:

 Typical practices depicted in X-rated videoes also include "double penetration" (where two men simultaneously have vaginal and anal intercourse with the one woman), one woman kneeling between two or more men and practising fellatio on each in turn, and one woman engaged simultaneously in vaginal or anal intercourse with one man or two men and fellatio with a second or third man. 

Two additional sexual practices have become staples in X-rated videos. It is standard practice in heterosexual pornography for the male partner to withdraw from intercourse or fellatio before orgasm to ejaculate onto the body or face of his female partner. These are commonly described as "cumshots", while the sub-genre "facials" refers to images of men ejaculating onto women's faces and women's faces covered in semen …

Across the myriad of pornographic images and texts, there are common classificatory schemes for types or genres of content. Among X-rated videos, there are series focused on particular sexual practices, sexual participants, body parts or other asepcts of sexuality. On the shelves of an adult store, one can find videos focused on "teens" and young women, "new" or "amateur" female participants, anal intercourse, fellatio, male ejaculation or "cumshots", breasts, buttocks, "lesbian" sex, Asian and black women, voyeurism, large penises, multiple male partners or "gangbangs", pregnant women 

… In looking at the proposed legislation, I had cause to go back and read the 1998 report of the Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Video Material Volumes One and Two. In commenting on video material similar to that being considered in this bill, the committee said: 

The dominant theme of this material also is that it "objectifies" and "commodifies" women. Rather than treating women as free and responsible initiators of human activity, the material in this category, although non-violent, treats women as sexual commodities to arouse the sexual desires of its target audience. 

The bulk of all pornographic material commercially available in Australia basically falls into this category. In general, there is little or no plot or character development and if there is a story line it is an excuse for the sex exploits contained in the material. 

The Committee, as did the Meese Commission also refers to this material as degrading in that it frequently "depicts people, usually women, as existing solely for the sexual satisfaction of others, usually men, or that it depicts people, usually women, in decidedly subordinate roles in their sexual relations with others, or that it depicts people engaged in sexual practices that would to most people be considered humiliating. 

Women are often depicted as sexually malleable for the purpose of satisfying male sexual desires. This is sometimes manifested by themes involving workplace sexual favours. Women are frequently depicted as eager for sexual experience of any kind and ever ready for any opportunity for sexual activity. 

Evidence cited by the joint select committee showed that such material engendered "a sexually calloused and manipulative orientation towards women" and " mediates in the mind of the habitual viewer a perception of women in general as promiscuous and available". 

Another aspect of pornography that is being increasingly understood is its addictive nature, particularly among men. Especially with its ease of access over the Internet, researchers are discovering that this material becomes a very serious and painful addiction for some. The article by Jack Cheetham titled "The perils of porn" in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 February 2005 highlights the personal impact on those who become addicted to X 18+ material. Dr Mary Anne Layden, an expert on the impact of this material, in her testimony to an American Senate committee on 18 November 2004, said: 

For the viewer, pornography increases the likelihood of sexual addiction and they respond in ways similar to other addicts. Sexual addicts develop tolerance and will need more and harder kinds of pornographic material.

The testimony is well worth reading. It is not doctrinaire, emotive or reactionary; it simply lays out a strong case against this material and its impact on people. It is only 3½ pages long, and I have spare copies for anyone who would like to read it. Those who argue that X 18+ material should be legally available often put the case that adults should be able to read, hear, and see what they want. The fact is that in Australia there is, and has been for many years, a classification arrangement in place that, although not perfect, provides a framework to classify publications, films, and computer games. 

The Hon. Peter Breen asserts that X 18+ videos and DVDs are readily available for purchase from adult shops in Kings Cross, Darlinghurst, George Street, and elsewhere. He also claims that other videos and DVDs that would be refused classification under the current regulatory framework are also available at the same outlets. If this is the case, the best way forward, in my view, is not to legalise the sale of the material but, rather, to improve the co-operation between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments so that the current laws can be better applied and enforced. The Hon. John Hatzistergos, in an answer to a question without notice from the Hon. David Oldfield on 22 February, made the point well. He said: 

I understand the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for the classification of DVDs and movies. States and Territories are responsible for the prosecution of offences relating to certain materials, but the Commonwealth classification legislation does not assist the police as the Commonwealth does not sufficiently resource its system. For instance, police investigating the sale of DVDs that might be X 18+ rated or unclassified have to apply in writing to the Office of Film and Literature Classification to have that office watch the DVD and decide whether it is X 18+ or unclassifiable. This is cumbersome. 

Clearly, through working together more closely, the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments can achieve real improvement in enforcing the current classification laws. The Hon. Peter Breen in his second reading speech said that there is nothing harmful or degenerate about X 18+ material. Of course, this is his opinion and he is entitled to it. However, many others disagree with him. It is interesting to note that at least four behavioural scientists whose work was scrutinised by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material identified harmful effects associated with X 18+ material. Dr Layden also made the same observations. It is worth quoting directly from page ix of the summary chapter of the Flood and Hamilton discussion paper. It states: 

A wide range of studies has been conducted among young people aged 18 to 25. One of the most important areas of social concern has been the impact of pornography on men's sexual behaviour towards women, and particularly male sexual aggression or rape. One major study integrated the findings of a broad range of research and concluded that there is consistent and reliable evidence that exposure to or consumption of pornography is related to male sexual aggression against women. This association is strongest for violent pornography and is still reliable for non-violent pornography, particularly when used frequently. 

In experimental studies, adults show significant strengthening of attitudes supportive of sexual aggression following exposure to pornography. These attitudes are measured by scales designed to measure 'rape myth acceptance', 'sexual callousness', 'adversarial sexual beliefs' and 'acceptance of interpersonal violence against women'.

On page x the authors note further: 

In our view, the research literature's documentation of significant associations between adult use of certain types of pornography and sexual aggression is of real concern. It is likely that similar relationships exist among teenagers … 

I also have very serious doubts that the so-called black market for this material would be wiped out if the sale of X 18+ material was legalised. Other members who spoke in this debate provided details of the black market that operates in the Australian Capital Territory, where the sale of such material is legal. Why would things be any different in New South Wales? Indeed, the Australian Capital Territory Government Registrar of X 18+ Film Licences has in the past made observations including: "Many breaches and offences are occurring undetected"; "There has been a significant level of unclassified, or Refused Classification, titles being sold or displayed for sale, or copied, in some licensed premises"; and "The industry is not meeting the requirements of the Act ." This is in a jurisdiction where X 18+ material is regulated. 

I also make the following point. To the extent that criminal elements are involved, particularly in the production of this material, surely nobody really believes that legalising it is suddenly going to clean up these things. Those not inclined to observe our laws tend to operate in the shadows whatever the legislative regime, especially if big dollars are involved. I strongly disagree with the concept of governments earning a revenue stream from taxing the production and/or sale of this material. In my view, this approach institutionalises and legitimises the material and does not serve the common good of our society. 

Dr. Layden's testimony also provides grim insights into the working lives of pornography performers, including high rates of substance abuse, typically alcohol and cocaine, depression, personality disorder, increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and domestic violence. 

Honourable members would know that the scheme for classification of publications, films and computer games in New South Wales is part of a national co- operative scheme. It has and continues to have the support of all Australian jurisdictions. All States in the Commonwealth currently prohibit the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ films. Amending New South Wales enforcement legislation in the way proposed by the bill, without giving due consideration to the situation in other States, runs counter to the Commonwealth-State censorship agreement. The bill would result in New South Wales being out of step with the States and the Commonwealth. 

Parliament has a critical role in developing and maintaining laws that take into account the common good of society. Claims by individuals for freedoms to do this or that need to be examined in the light of the impact on others and society in general. Furthermore, laws should also uphold both the dignity and respect of the human person. The bill, in my view, achieves neither. I believe it promotes the opposite. 

Moreover, the big challenge we must face up to is how we protect young people from being exposed to X 18+ and much worse material that is now readily available on the Internet. An article in the Weekend Australian on 23 and 24 April highlighted the fact that almost one in six children as young as eight who use the internet have been exposed to online pornography, most frequently through pop-up advertisements. Surely legislators need to turn their minds to how this issue can be addressed. For all the reasons outlined, I urge honourable members not to support the bill. 

Trish Draper

SA Federal
Member of the House of Reps
Liberal Party
Electorate: Makin

Morals campaigner who hit the headlines in 2004 for taking her lover on a taxpayers funded overseas trip.

***

In 1999 she was involved in the attempt to ban Adrian Lyne's remake of LOLITA

***

Also involved in the 2001 dropping of the proposed NVE rating, that eventually saw the guidelines tightened for X18+.

***

Involved in the 2002 ban on BAISE-MOI.

Quoted from:
Nile and Co get top billing as Baise Moi meets the usual suspects. SMH 14.05.05
Ms Draper, a South Australian MP, said she was contacted by constituents and the Festival of Light in early April. ''It started out as a couple of calls but built up to quite a few. I was disgusted to think a film of its sex and violence could get an R-rating."

Quoted from:
Cinematic smut off Aussie screens . SMH 11.05.05
"The Liberal member for Makin in South Australia, Trish Draper, was delighted by the decision. While she had not seen the film, she believed it contravened the guidelines for an R rating because of its violence and sex.

Quoted from:
Baise-Moi controversy set to ensure full houses. SMH 23.04.05
Mrs Draper, who has not seen the film, wrote to both Prime Minister John Howard and Mr Williams requesting the classification be reviewed after members of her electorate drew the film's official warnings - "strong sexual violence, high level violence, actual sex and adult themes" - to her attention.

***

In 2004 she called for the film ANATOMY OF HELL to be banned.

Mr SNELLING (Playford): Late last year, along with the member for Florey and the federal member for Makin, Trish Draper, I attended the Christmas break-up of the Valley View Neighbourhood Watch. None of us had been invited to speak and, given the nature of the event, I thought that fair enough. However, that did not stop Ms Draper, who promptly invited herself to speak on the then imminent release of the French art-house film, Anatomy of Hell, of which she was rather critical. I am not of the opinion that adults should be able to watch whatever they want, and I think that the government has a role in censoring films that offend public decency. However, what flowed from Ms Draper was an extraordinary attack on the state government and the Attorney-General, in particular, for not using his powers to ban the film in South Australia.

I think that there are good reasons for the state's not striking out and taking a `going it alone' approach to censorship, the main reason being that, because of DVDs and videos, these films can be moved across state borders very easily. One has only to look at the number of X-rated or non-violent erotica films that constantly come across into our state from Canberra. What I find remarkable is that, while criticising the state government, Ms Draper, who is a member of the federal government (which has the prime responsibility for classification and censorship), seems to have done nothing to approach the federal government on these issues. I wonder what she has done to lobby the federal Attorney-General about the personnel who comprise the federal Classification Board probably not much.

Recently, I was amazed to learn that a former deputy head of the Classification Board has taken up a position as a lobbyist for the Eros Foundation, which is one of the main promoters of pornography. It is remarkable that, upon retirement, someone who has held a position as an independent umpire takes up a position as such a lobbyist. However, my main grievance is Ms Draper's getting up at community functions, at which she was not invited to speak, and making political attacks on the state government on matters for which the federal government has prime responsibility.

Date: 07 March, 2005
Speaker: Draper, Trish, MP (Makin, LP, Government)
Proof: Yes
Type: Speech
Main Committee: No
Database: House Hansard
Page: 15
Source: House
Context: Statements by Members

Mrs DRAPER  (Makin) (1.57 p.m.) —On Thursday, 17 February 2005, the member for Playford in South Australia, Mr Jack Snelling, rose in the state parliament to speak about the Christmas break-up of the Valleyview Neighbourhood Watch that he, I and the member for Florey, Frances Bedford, had attended. He said that none of us had been invited to speak. However, that did not stop me. I promptly invited myself to speak about the imminent release of the French arthouse film Anatomy of Hell with which I disagree. He said that he was not of the opinion that adults should be able to watch whatever they want, and he thought that the government had a role in censoring films that offend public decency.

However, he went on to say that I made an extraordinary attack on the state government and on the Attorney-General in particular for not using his powers to ban the film. He was saying that I was behaving in a political manner at a neighbourhood watch meeting, which is not true. I asked if I could address the meeting about something that is of great importance and concern to my constituents in my electorate. Jack Snelling does not understand that South Australia have maintained their own state based classification board and the South Australian Attorney-General can at any time refer a matter to the review board. (Time expired)

Date: 09 March, 2005
Speaker: Draper, Trish, MP (Makin, LP, Government)
Proof: Yes
Type: Yes
Main Committee: No
Database: House Hansard
Page: 95
Source: House
Context: Adjournment

Mrs DRAPER  (Makin) (7.35 p.m.) —I have mentioned in the House on a previous occasion this week that I was subject to a most unfortunate and misdirected attack on 17 February 2005 in the South Australian House of Assembly by the member for Playford, Mr Jack Snelling MP. The attack centred on film classification and my willingness to speak at a public meeting of a local Neighbourhood Watch group regarding the inaction of the South Australian Attorney-General over the release of the French art-house film Anatomy of Hell—a film I and many of the people of Makin believe is an affront to public decency. Mr Snelling stated in the South Australian parliament:

Mrs Draper ... seems to have done nothing to approach the federal government on these issues.

The issues he was referring to were film classification and censorship. If there is one topic I have continuously acted upon since entering parliament it is the classification of films that portray sexually violent scenes against women, scenes of gratuitous violence or explicit acts and, to a further extent, those involving the depiction of children in such acts.

The people of my electorate have an expectation that their local member of parliament, when able, will act on these issues in their interest. I have done this throughout my political career and was a well-known campaigner on film classification even before I became a member of this place. This, however, cannot be said of the Labor members of the South Australian state parliament, in particular Mr Jack Snelling, member for Playford, and Ms Frances Bedford, member for Florey. Whilst these politicians often tout themselves as caring for our community, they do nothing of the sort. Frances Bedford, the member for Florey, and the member for Wright, Jennifer Rankine, both voted on more than one occasion in the state parliament to support the establishment of local legalised brothels in our community and the legalisation of prostitution.

I have literally lost count of the number of times I, acting on behalf of the people of Makin, have brought these issues of film classification and inappropriate films being released for general public consumption before the parliament and raised them with the appropriate ministers. Yet Mr Snelling has the gall to question what I have done in relation to film classification. In fact I have been in contact with the Attorney-General throughout this week regarding the inappropriate classification of films. Mr Snelling was aggrieved that I directed an attack toward the South Australian government on this issue, but I would like to point out that the buck stops with them at this point in time. The South Australian government have the final call on the censorship issues within the state, yet they have done nothing. Who do the South Australian government protect by their inaction? Not, I believe, the well-meaning people of the electorate of Makin who knock on my door complaining about these films and their perverse take on what is acceptable in today's society.

South Australia has its own classification council, which can receive complaints about a film's classification and review its classification in South Australia, which is why I spoke up at the local Neighbourhood Watch meeting. This council can change the classification of a film within South Australia and even stop its release. However Mr Snelling and his government colleagues refuse to recognise this and do not take any action on behalf of concerned citizens within South Australia. Neither Mr Snelling nor Frances Bedford nor Jennifer Rankine nor any of their state colleagues will ever stop me from addressing in every forum I have available the very real concern of a great number of my constituents regarding the inappropriate classification of films.

In the past I have always been—and I will continue to be in the future—the voice of concerned constituents in my electorate and of those people across Australia who are concerned about films and matters that affront public decency in such a manner. In fact this very week, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, I have set up a briefing for coalition members and senators regarding the operation of the classification board. The director and the convenor of the classification board will present, to answer the very real concerns I and my colleagues have about this matter. That is far more than can be said of the member for Playford, Jack Snelling, and the member for Florey, Frances Bedford, in the South Australian government.

***

One of the major campaigners against the 2005 version of BIG BROTHER.

Quoted from:
Big Brother or big brothel? The Age 22.06.05

...... morals crusader Trish Draper says it's an outrage.

The political hoopla over Big Brother began during yesterday's meeting of Coalition MPs when Ms Draper complained about the "outrageous and disgusting" depictions of young people.

Not a stranger to controversy (Ms Draper was last year the star of her own saucy scandal when she was forced to repay the travel costs of taking her lover on a taxpayer-funded study tour), she said she had been inundated with complaints from residents in her electorate.

Quoted from:
Push to ban 'offensive' TV shows. The Age 17.08.05
"We don't have that power now, but once we do have that ability, the self-regulators on commercial free-to-air will certainly be examining the code a lot more closely so that they don't end up getting their programs yanked from the air.

"I am concerned about children in Australia, quite frankly, and in my electorate, and there are at least 20 of us in the parliamentary party who will be pushing for this."

***

Despite winning her push for increased censorship of BIG BROTHER, she was back complaining about the 2006 version. BIG BROTHER: UNCUT had now became Big Brother: Adults Only. Political pressure saw Channel 10 scrap the final four episodes in June 2006.

Quoted from:
Big Brother sleaze angers MPs. Herald Sun 21.06.06

Liberal MP Trish Draper yesterday said the Government needed to be able to take the adult show off the air within 48 hours if it broke censorship rules.

Ms Draper and National Party MP Paul Neville complained about the gratuitous nature of the program to Coalition colleagues at a joint party room meeting yesterday.

They said they were concerned it would take more than a month to have the adults-only version of Big Brother axed under existing rules if it breached MA+ guidelines.

Ms Draper, who heads a parliamentary classifications committee, said she had asked Communications Minister Helen Coonan to examine the issue.

"We feel that ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) should be able to compel Channel 10 to sit down and go through the process immediately there are complaints," she said.

Under existing rules, complaints must first be made to the TV network and are only taken to the ACMA if they are not resolved in 30 days.

***

Quoted from:
Axe smutty TV in 48 hours, say MPs. The Advertiser 22.06.06

Ms Draper said a group of concerned MPs wanted to see the turnaround for complaints to Ten and ACMA reduced to 48 hours.

"Therefore, if Channel 10 have breached the code, we can have the program pulled off air," she said. "Currently, it takes a minimum of 30 working days and that is far too long because the series continues and . . . Ten gets away with it once again."

Ms Draper is chairwoman of a Classification Issues Group in the Coalition, made up of about 40 MPs. Along with deputy chairman, Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, she today will meet Communications Minister Helen Coonan's office to discuss the group's proposal.

Ms Draper said she believed Network Ten had breached the commercial television industry code of practice by apparently depicting a sexual act in its late night show.

"It is an appalling indictment on how low entertainment programs will go for audiences," she said.

"I find it very sad that reasonably intelligent Australians waste their time watching this sort of rubbish.

"I would be most distressed if any of my sons treated women the way they are treated in that program." 

***

Quoted from:
Ten pulls Brother after MP scalding. The Australian 24.06.06

During Tuesday's partyroom meeting, committee chair Trish Draper and Nationals MP Paul Neville complained directly to John Howard about Big Brother.

***

Quoted from:
Big Brother stays on - smut and all. The Advertiser. 06.07.06 

SA federal Liberal MP Trish Draper, who chairs the Coalition's Classification Issues Group, was "disappointed" Network Ten had not been penalised. She said the issues group would continue to push for television shows, which breached the television code, to be pulled off air 48 hours after a breach.

***

In August 2007 she spoke against the Classification Amendment Bill 2007

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 09 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Draper, Trish, MP (Makin, LP, Government) 
Page 85
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 
Main Committee Yes

Second Reading Speech Mrs DRAPER (Makin) (11.09 a.m.)—The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007 has involved working with the states and territories to implement a new scheme which will supposedly mean greater levels of advertising for the film and computer game industries. This bill has been developed in response to industry concern, and concern for their profits, in relation to the current arrangements. The government, I am informed, has worked with film producers and advertisers, who have strongly voiced their concerns with the current legislation and the impact that its restrictions have on their ability to combat piracy. This bill is set to combat the risk of piracy as it permits companies to advertise their product further in advance of the release date. It is also supposed to eliminate red tape and clarify legal requirements to improve compliance, which of course remains to be seen.

As the chairman of the Classification Issues Group, I have long held concerns about this bill. This legislation, if passed, would replace the current prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games with a new scheme which permits the industry to self-assess and self-regulate their advertising regime. We all know about self-assessment and self-regulation. As the Australian community experienced in the latter half of 2006 with Channel 10’s Big Brother series, self-assessment and self-regulation overwhelmingly failed. As a result, the government and the office of the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, have been working to secure stronger powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, in introducing tougher regulations, not abolishing them, to strengthen the regime.

The Australian community continued to express their concern that, when advertising and industry profits are the paramount consideration, consumers and especially minors may be exposed to inappropriate advertising and graphically adult material, particularly in relation to violence. This bill was set to introduce a scheme whereby unclassified films and computer games could be advertised together with classified material. Yes, there have been statements by the Attorney-General’s office that there are adequate safeguards by ensuring that the Classification Board or an authorised assessor will deal with the likely classification. This authorised assessor is explained as one with industry experience who has satisfied mandatory training requirements. The Classification Board and industry have made, in my view, dubious and wrong decisions in the past with regard to the classification and appropriateness of viewing material.

In the past I have had to voice my grave concern and ask the Attorney-General to intervene, in the public interest, and have the Classification Board’s decision on these films reviewed by the Classification Review Board. I have done this with, for example, the films Lolita, Anatomy of Hell, Baise-Moi and Irreversible, just to name a few. This bill was supposed to include several safeguards. The government has secured an assurance from the CEOs of major industry groups that, if this scheme is introduced, their organisations will act responsibly and in compliance with the scheme. This is all well and good, but are we willing to risk community classifications standards on these assurances? What happens if these companies move on or do not live up to their side of the bargain? The scheme is only able to be reviewed in three years time. This is a risk I am not willing to take. Another supposed safeguard mentioned is the training of the authorised assessors, who will undertake training provided by the director of the Classification Board.

I cannot support this bill in its current form. I have no confidence in the safeguards that have been provided. When the opportunity arises, I look forward to amendments being introduced, either in this place or in the other place, which will strike out this bill to ensure the protection of community standards relating to the classification of film and computer games. I am extremely disappointed that this bill is going ahead regardless of the objections of many of my colleagues.

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com