David Fawcett

SA Federal
Member of the House of Representatives
Liberal Party
Electorate: Wakefield

2007: Called for a nationwide porn ban

During the 2007 debate concerning the banning of X18+ pornography from Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, David Fawcett called for the ban to be nationwide.

Date 07 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Fawcett, David, MP (Wakefield, LP, Government) 
Page 72
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 
Main Committee No

Mr FAWCETT (Wakefield) (7.54 p.m.)—

....whilst I welcome the measures in the Northern Territory to ban X-rated, 18-plus pornography going into those communities, I think it is interesting to note that, since the 1980s, that material has been banned around Australia in other states. If we believe that damage is being done in the Northern Territory through this material—and given the weight of evidence around the world about the impact of pornography on people, both adults and children—I think it would be appropriate to look at completely banning that material in Australia. I would welcome further moves from the government to have a common alignment across all the states and territories in terms of that material.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells 

NSW Federal
Member of the Senate
Liberal Party

2006: Filth on SBS

It is a long held conservative tradition during Senate Estimates to complain about porn on SBS. Here Concetta Fierravanti-Wells questions SBS managing director, Shaun Brown 

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

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

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

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

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

All from your documentary series.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk Mr Brown—That is also in the charter.

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

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

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

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

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

***

2008: How to challenge the Classification Board

Here she is questioning the Trevor Griffin, the Acting Convenor of the Classification Review Board during Senate Estimates. 

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —In terms of legal challenges to the decisions of the classification board, it has been a long time since I have looked at this area, but what is the nature of the litigation these days? I refer, in other words, to challenges to the decisions of the board. How many do you have a year? Can you assist me as to the sorts of people who now have standing and whether, for example, an ordinary member of the public has standing today? If so, do they effect that right and challenge through the legal processes?

Mr Griffin—In terms of applications for review, this year I think there have only been five. But there was a challenge by a group in relation to Viva Erotica, which we classified as X18+. That went to the Federal Court and then to the full Federal Court. The classification and also the process by which we got to the classification were upheld by the Federal Court, both at first instance and on appeal. But there are not very many reviews, as you can see. In fact, there have been fewer reviews since 2007. I think in 2007 there were eight reviews and in 2006 there were even more than that. This year the number of reviews has certainly been a much lesser number than in previous years.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —Could you comment on the question on standing to apply for review?

Mr Griffin —A review may be sought by the distributor or by an aggrieved person.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —And that aggrieved person could be a member of the public?

Mr Griffin —In some instances yes. It is under section 42 of the act:

(a) a person who has engaged in a series of activities relating to, or research into, the contentious aspects of the theme or subject matter of the publication, film or computer game concerned;

(b) an organisation or association, whether incorporated or not, whose objects or purposes include, and whose activities relate to, the contentious aspects of that theme or subject matter.

That is if the decision referred to is a restricted decision.

So there is a capacity, but the difficulty with an individual applying is to satisfy those criteria but also to satisfy the financial arrangements. I think it is $8,000 for an application to review.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —So, in other words, the right of an offended member of the public has been considerably watered down over the years?

Mr Griffin —I do not think it has been watered down. I think that has been the provision for—

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —It probably has been since the time I last looked at it.

Mr Griffin —I am sorry. I have not looked at that in terms of the historical context, but we can take that on notice. The other means by which reviews can be undertaken, or be initiated, is for the federal minister responsible for censorship to seek a review—and that has happened on a number of occasions, where representations have been made by a state minister responsible for censorship. When a state minister responsible for censorship requests a federal minister for a review, the federal minister must initiate the review. The federal minister frequently then does not participate, but we have representations from groups like the Australian Family Association, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties and similar sorts of parties who have a specific focus in respect of the issues which are the subject of review.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—Do you get solicitations from members of the public in terms of complaints? Do you have some sort of a system whereby they can do that?

Mr Griffin—I think there are two issues there. One is in respect of an initial classification decision. There are representations made by members of the public periodically but, on the other hand, I cannot answer for any initial complaint made to the «classification» «board. I can only talk for the Classification Review Board.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —I appreciate that.

Mr Griffin —But members of the public do raise it. We have had one recently from a person who is 15 years of age. In those circumstances we determined that that person did not fit within the criteria as an aggrieved person. I think there are other informal representations made from time to time but, after discussion, the issue has not been pursued. In relation to several of those magazines to which Senator Joyce has been referring, there was a suggestion that there would be an application for review made through one of the state attorneys-general but that has not transpired, so there has been no informal application for review to the review board.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—In view of the much more explicit nature of the material that is out there, has some thought been given to perhaps extending the criteria whereby standing can be given to a wider range of people?

Mr Griffin —As acting convenor I cannot really intimate that because that is really a policy matter for governments.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—I appreciate that. Perhaps I can ask the minister to take that on notice. In view of the greater explicitness of material out there—material which is getting worse and worse—is this something that perhaps we ought to be thinking about? Should we be giving greater standing to people to complain about the inappropriateness of this material?

Senator Wong—I am happy to take that on notice on behalf of the Attorney-General. I am not sure when these provisions referred to by Mr Griffin were, in fact, altered.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —I am happy for that to go on notice.

Mr Griffin—Can I just add one other point that has been drawn to my attention. There is a provision in the act that allows for the capacity—and I am aware of it but I did not remember it when I was talking—to waive fees in certain circumstances. Those fees occasionally are waived, so that the $8,000 ceases then to be an impediment. That is set out in section 91 of the act.

Mr Govey—Madam Chair, we have got, and could table for you, the information that was sought about the South Australian Attorney-General’s statement in the parliament.

CHAIR —All right, thank you.

[5.15 pm]

Continue...

   www.refused-classification.com

| Online Since April 2002