Gregory Johnson
Qld State
Member of Parliament
National Party
Electorate: Gregory
2005: Filth on SBS
Had these concerned words to say in the debate into the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005.
QUEENSLAND PARLIAMNENT
51ST PARLIAMENT
TUESDAY, 10 MAY 2005
Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.20 pm): The Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is a very important piece of legislation. I know that parallels have been drawn with the national classification system for home computer games and films. I believe that we have to take a long, hard look at our society today in relation to the classification system. I know that the minister is passionate about this issue, too. I think we share a common view about what is happening. Some of these exhibitions, whether they be movies or computer games—and I want to particularly talk about movies—leave a lot to be desired. Late last night, at about 10 or 11 o’clock, I turned on the TV to SBS. What I saw on SBS was absolute filth. That is what it was—absolute filth. I am no prude, but a little kid could be up at that hour—we know kids are up at that hour—and could see that sort of exhibition. What hope have we got? I draw the parliament's attention to that today. We have review mechanisms in place in this legislation. I know there are review mechanisms in place, but at the same time I think some of the responsibility should rest with the people who put these programs to air. They should be showing leadership and responsibility in relation to what is shown on our screens. I know there are adult shops around the place and I know that people can buy adult films, but at the end of the day we have to protect our young people. There is a table in the explanatory notes that lists existing film and computer games classification types. There is G, which is general; G8+, which is general for age eight and over; and M15+, which is mature for those aged 15 and over. What is the difference between a seven-year-old and an eight- or nine-year-old? I know that this is the old classification system, but this is where there needs to be closer scrutiny. I know that members on both sides of the House have canvassed these issues in the past, but it comes back to one thing: there is violence on the square box—there is no doubt about it—and the violence is unacceptable in many cases. We should be taking a long, hard look at some of these films in question. If I see a violent movie or see something violent even on the news, I turn the TV off and walk away. I do not like it and there are probably a lot of people who think that way. When a young person sees that sort of thing, they must think that people condone that. That is how their little minds become warped. I hope that the measures in this legislation will address that. At the end of the day, it is up to the parents. A lot of parents and guardians work different hours. But what price can you put on our young people? We cannot put a price on them and they are not negotiable. I think we have to closely scrutinise how this is policed in the future because, when it comes to crime, these films and computer games can be the root of evil. The police are trying to do a job and when they ask juveniles, ‘Where did you see that?’ they answer, ‘I saw it on TV.’ They think it must be okay because they saw it on the TV. We live in a permissive society today. There is a different set of values today from the set of values that the 89 members of this parliament were brought up with. I think we have to be hard and fast about making some changes. I hope that the minister can keep her hands on the wheel and that we will see outcomes of better viewing for our young people and hopefully more enjoyment and entertainment. When I was a child we did not have TV. In latter years some good movies came out and we can still watch those movies today.
Barnaby Joyce
Qld Federal
Member of the Senate
National Party
On his very first day in the job he set out his pro-censorship credentials by issuing these two media releases.
2005: POPETOWN on The Comedy Channel
Media Release
Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce
Friday, 1 July 2005
Religious 'Comedy' Crosses the Line.
New National Senator Barnaby Joyce is outraged a television series banned in Britain and New Zealand will be aired next week on Foxtel's Comedy Channel. (IT IS NOT BANNED IN NEW ZEALAND. IT HAS BEEN SCREENING SINCE JUNE 9TH)
Senator Joyce says 'Popetown', and animated 'comedy' show set in the Vatican, is highly offensive and has no place on Australian screens.
"The program is a huge insult to the Catholic Community and to all Christians, who have a respect for the Papacy," Senator Joyce said.
"There is a line between what's considered satirical humour and what's just offensive. 'Popetown' crosses that line.
"It shows a serious lack of respect for a key world figure and sets a terrible example for young Australians (AND PEDOPHILE PRIESTS DO SET A GOOD EXAMPLE?)
"If this is the standard of programming we can expect then I suggest we should be looking at our television licensing agreements and where we're directing our funding (UNLESS HOWARD HAS WORKED OUT SOME SECRET DEAL WITH PACKER AND MURDOCH, EXACTLY HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT FUND FOXTEL? YOU HAVE TO PAY AT LEAST $50 A WEEK TO RECEIVE IT)
2005: IN SEARCH OF THE PERFECT PENIS on SBS
"We need to raise the bar when it comes to media censorship and what we as Australians find acceptable entertainment," he said.
Media Release
Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce
Friday, 1 July 2005
Senator Disgusted at Late Night Viewing
"Inappropriate and insulting" is how the National Senator Barnaby Joyce has labelled the documentary 'In Search of the Perfect Penis', screening tonight on SBS Television.
The Senator is horrified advertising for the documentary in a major newspaper included pictorial references to the Pope.
"It is especially insulting to the Catholic Community and shows a great lack of respect for all Christians," Senator Joyce said.
This really is the lowest form of entertainment and viewers have nothing to gain from tuning in.
"If this is the standard of programming we can expect then I suggest we should be looking at our television licensing agreements and where we're directing our funding
***
2005: Attacks SBS During Senate Estimates
In Senate Estimates on October 31st 2005, Joyce
had his first chance to grill SBS. Programs up for discussion included
(surprise, surprise) QUEER AS FOLK and the documentary Lost
Worlds: The Real Family of Jesus. The latter, a program that prompted
Joyce to say:
"I want you to take it on notice that we are on notice, that we are watching and that every time this sort of garbage comes out we are going to haul you to task over it."
"I cannot see the reason why we bother sending any money your way."
Full marks to the Shaun Brown and Julie Eisenburg from SBS for defending the station so well in the face of questioning from this little prick.
A word to Barnaby. If you intend to fill Brian Harradine's boots then you had better do some more research before opening your mouth. Mr Brown and Ms Eisenberg are correct. SBS screened the 1962 Stanley Kubrick film, not the 1997 R18+ rated Adrian Lyne version.
Senator JOYCE—In May you had Lolita on. Lolita is rated R, if you got it from a video store. How did you manage to get that on?
Mr Brown—It was not rated R for—
Ms Eisenberg—Was that the Stanley Kubrick version?
Mr Brown—The Stanley Kubrick 1960s film
***
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE: Special Broadcasting Service: Discussion
Commitree Name: ENVIRONMENT,
COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE
Date: 31 October, 2005
Database: Estimates Comm.
Proof: Yes
Source: Senate
Page: 89
Mr Shaun Brown Acting Managing Director
Ms Julie Eisenburg, Head of Policy
Senator Barnaby Joyce
CHAIR—We are waiting for Senator Conroy. In the meantime, perhaps I might ask you about how successful your cricket coverage this year was and what kind of audiences you received.
Mr Brown—It was very successful. It was one of those test series where the action went right to the final day.
CHAIR—It was, yes.
Mr Brown—On the final day we achieved a 21 per cent share, which is an all-time record for SBS, between six and midnight. That is a measure of that success. More than that, it introduced a lot of new viewers to SBS, which was part of our reason for securing that property.
CHAIR—Have you found that it has flowed on? Are you having a bigger audience share now post the series than you did before?
Mr Brown—Yes, we are experiencing what is called a halo effect. Our average audience up till the end of October stands at 6.3 per cent across the year. That is compared to 5.1 per cent last year. So it has had a marked effect. The underlying schedule has been performing more strongly as well.
CHAIR—What about your second channel? Can you tell us how that has been proceeding and how successful it has been?
Mr Brown—Our second channel is exclusively in languages other than English. In essence, it is a rotation of World Watch content with some updates as well. We do not track the ratings on it.
CHAIR—You do not?
Mr Brown—No. I would be surprised if it were pulling big numbers. I am sure it is not in fact. It is more of a service to a smaller group of viewers who cannot see World Watch in a timely fashion and therefore can access it at another time of the day.
CHAIR—Are you getting positive feedback on that?
Mr Brown—Yes. I think it is well received. Obviously, we wish more people had taken advantage of digital technology. But if we continue to get lift-off of that technology then I think it will be a significant service.
CHAIR—The uptake of digital is interesting. In many other parts of the world there is multichannelling and interactivity. Do you think that would assist here? You do have multichannelling yourself, of course.
Mr Brown—I think multichannelling is the key. It provides tangible additional services that create demand. I think unless one has that demand then digital is in danger of being a sort of fringe activity rather than a central one.
CHAIR—It is not so much the picture but the other things, I think, that will attract people to digital.
Mr Brown—I think it is all about content.
CHAIR—The interactivity and the multichannelling, I think.
Mr Brown—The international experience is that interactivity is yet to prove a significant driver, but it is an important part of the mix.
Senator JOYCE—Going to your interpretation of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, how do you operate within that code?
Ms Eisenberg—Under the SBS Act, the SBS board is required to develop programming policies. Those programming policies appear in our codes of practice, and the current SBS codes of practice include a reference to the OFLC principles as a guideline. But obviously in the television context and in the SBS context they are interpreted in a way that is appropriate to that context.
Senator JOYCE—Would there be anything that is specifically to be interpreted by someone watching SBS that would be interpreted differently to someone watching Channel 9 or Channel 7?
Mr Brown—Inasmuch as the content that is produced at all?
Senator JOYCE—Inasmuch as the content.
Mr Brown—Our content does operate under a different set of codes than the commercial free to airs.
Senator JOYCE—Why would that be? Are people intrinsically different who watch your television station? Is there something that personifies them as being peculiar or different?
Mr Brown—No, to the contrary, there is nothing peculiar about the SBS audience. No, I think it is the way it has been set up in legislative terms—that we are responsible for setting codes and ACMA is responsible for finally overseeing them. I believe with the commercial broadcasters it is a different approach.
Senator JOYCE—It seems, though, that there is obviously a disparity between how you see the Office of Film and Literature Classification and how Channel 9, Channel 7 and Channel 10 would?
Ms Eisenberg—It is probably easier to respond to a specific example. That would be helpful.
Senator JOYCE—In May you had Lolita on. Lolita is rated R, if you got it from a video store. How did you manage to get that on?
Mr Brown—It was not rated R for—
Ms Eisenberg—Was that the Stanley Kubrick version?
Mr Brown—The Stanley Kubrick 1960s film.
Ms Eisenberg—I think we would need to take that on notice. There was another version of it which was made a number of years later which had a different rating. R rated content is not permitted on SBS under our codes of practice.
Senator JOYCE—Do you think there is somehow more latitude in SBS? It just seems peculiar. There seems to be a range of examples of things that make it onto SBS—and, being a father of four kids, yes, I know we should put them into bed early at night—that would not make it onto other television stations.
Mr Brown—All of our codes are subject to a formal complaints procedure. From time to time we do get a complaint about classification. In the event of the outcome of that complaint not satisfying the complainant, it can be appealed to the independent authority, which was the ABA and now ACMA. I think I am right in saying that in recent years we have not had any upholds in that area.
Ms Eisenberg—The only one that I am aware of a number of years ago was an issue relating to whether a program—it was a repeat of the Movie Show—should have been rated G or PG. That was one finding where it was found that if should have been classified PG, but it was a borderline breach.
Senator JOYCE—Do you change for different states or does it all come out as a block? Do you have a different timeslot now for Queensland or is it on the same timeslot?
Mr Brown—We have a national signal, but it is shifted so that it is on the same time in each state.
Senator JOYCE—So 10 pm in New South Wales is—
Mr Brown—Would be 10 pm in Queensland.
Senator JOYCE—Without making any assertions about it—I will just read this anyway—on Queer as Folk, which is on at 10 pm:
In tonight’s episode, there is a hot new stud at Babylon and Brian immediately targets him but is amazed when the guy rejects his advances and he won’t accept the fact he’s been given the brush-off because that would mean facing his advancing gay mortality. Michael and Ben are proud of how Hunter is handling the backlash at school, but when Ben goes to school to attend Hunter’s debate, he discovers what has really been going on for Hunter. Emmett is a success at Channel 5 but Brian’s claim that he’s just another sexless fag for ratings leaves Emmett with second thoughts about his TV role. Since having plastic surgery, Ted now looks like a hot stud. His extreme makeover has given him confidence and when a lover from his past passes by, Ted takes the opportunity to pay him back.
Does that sound like the sort of thing that my children and someone else’s children should have access to?
Mr Brown—It is shown at 10 o’clock at night, which I think would be commonly regarded as an adult viewing time. It is preceded by warnings and it is officially classified MA so that it can be shown. It is a program that would be shown in other countries around the world. There is a British version of Queer as Folk.
Senator JOYCE—But is that how we rate things now—that if it is shown in other countries around the world then it is acceptable?
Mr Brown—No. I really only mention that to say that it is not exceptional as being shown here in Australia. It does beg the question of course whether or not Australia should suppress content that is shown elsewhere around the world.
Senator JOYCE—I do not care whether it is two blokes or a bloke and a girl. Either way you put it, it is a dynamic that implies explicitness, even in just how you advertise it.
Mr Brown—The explicitness will be reflected in its classification. I think if you watched it you might form a view that the classification is not inappropriate, not for 10 o’clock at night.
Senator JOYCE—Let us go to something else. Let us talk about things that might be determined by some people to be offensive. Let us go to what is on on Sunday night. This is what is said about Lost Worlds: The Real Family of Jesus:
In part one, genealogist Tony Burroughs deals with the common misconception that Jesus was the single child of a nuclear family.
That is news to me. It goes on:
Evidence from the Gospels, history and archaeology as well as the interpretations of religious experts—
I would love to meet them—
reveal that not only did Mary have other children, but that Joseph had a previous marriage that produced children. Interviews with scholars reveal that Jesus had in fact two half-brothers, James and Joseph, two half-sisters, Salome and Miriam, and two full brothers, Simon and Judas. Other family members are revealed including Jesus’ Uncle Clophas and Mary’s cousin Elisabeth, who was the mother of John the Baptist—another relation and a key spiritual figure in the development of Jesus.
Do you think there are people in the community who might find that offensive?
Mr Brown—It is possible that some people may not be prepared to have an analytical approach to their religious belief.
Senator JOYCE—It is not a matter of being analytical. Do you think people in the community would find that highly offensive?
Mr Brown—My answer stands. I think some people may find it offensive.
Senator JOYCE—I would say some people would find it highly offensive. If you put that on about the Prophet Mohammed, you would be probably end up with bomb threats, wouldn’t you? Would you do the same thing about the Prophet Mohammed?
Mr Brown—I cannot answer that. That is a documentary that we have acquired from overseas. If similar material was available dealing with other faiths, yes, we may well carry it. That is a 7.30 evening slot. I do not think there is a classification issue there. You are suggesting there is a sensitivity to religious beliefs?
Senator JOYCE—I am saying that it would be deemed to be highly insulting to some people. That is what I am saying. I am not asserting that. I am saying that it is highly insulting to a range of people and that it shows absolutely no belief by you that other people would find it highly insulting and that you have actually targeted what is the most fundamental, deepest philosophical belief of a whole range of people in our community without any tempering of it by yourself. Do you think that it is a fair thing for the public money of the taxpayers of Australia to go to that sort of program?
Mr Brown—I do not agree with your premise that that is not a legitimate area for scrutiny by a public broadcaster. I think religious beliefs are something that should be scrutinised and discussed and analysed and debated. Certainly for a multicultural broadcaster that services a number of different religious beliefs, it does not seem to me inappropriate. In this day and age where we are talking about the Da Vinci Code, the Holy Grail, the debate about the Christian faith is wide ranging. I do not think people would ordinarily be offended by the fact that it is being considered and discussed.
Senator JOYCE—But it is using what a lot of people would deem to be the closest most focal point of their lives and basically rubbishing it. What is the factual content of this? This is all new information. Would you stand by this? Do you think this is a factually precise document? You have done the research into it and it has passed your imprimatur as being a factually worthwhile thing to put on television.
Mr Brown—I would have to take that on notice. I have not seen the program. I am reliant on the description you are giving me.
Senator JOYCE—You will get to see it on Sunday night. What is put to me as a representative of the people of Queensland is that this sort of thing prompts them to ask why we bother sponsoring SBS. They give it so much latitude in so many areas, but then it always manages to go that step that just takes it from questioning to insulting.
Mr Brown—I think before one forms that judgment one should see the program.
Senator JOYCE—I am reading what it says. It is on your web site. It is a statement. It makes a statement. It deals with a ‘common misconception that Jesus was the single child of a nuclear family’. That is a statement. It does not say ‘We question’; it says it deals with the ‘common misconception that Jesus was the single child of a nuclear family’. It also states:
Evidence from the Gospels, history and archaeology as well as the interpretations of religious experts reveal ...
It does not question, it does not say it needs to be discussed or that there is an area of doubt. It says ‘reveal that not only did Mary have other children, but that Joseph’ must have been married before and have had children from that marriage. That is interesting. I have grabbed my bible— I cannot find anywhere Joseph’s previous marriage. So where did it come from? It is on your program. It is taxpayers’ money that is going to sponsor this trash.
Mr Brown—As I said, I have not seen the program. I am quite happy to take on notice the consideration of whether that particular listing that you have taken from the web accurately reflects the program.
Senator JOYCE—I want you to take it on notice that we are on notice, that we are watching and that every time this sort of garbage comes out we are going to haul you to task over it.
Mr Brown—I think, with respect, the time to call it garbage is after you have seen it.
Senator JOYCE—I do not have to. This is yours. This is off your web site. This is what it says is going to be on. It does not talk about questioning. It makes statements. It makes statements so my nine-year-old daughter, who can read quite well, can read that and has now come forward with a thing that says, ‘Dad, apparently Joseph was married before and Jesus was not part of a nuclear family and that Mary had other children.’ Who are these half brothers?
Mr Brown—I do not know, because I have not seen the program.
Senator JOYCE—Read your web site, because it is there. We have Queer as Folk on tonight, and that says what it is, and then there is this. I cannot see the reason why we bother sending any money your way. Those are my questions.
***
2006: BIG BROTHER Complaints
In June 2006, Joyce was involved in putting pressure on Channel 10 to remove BIG BROTHER: ADULTS ONLY. When the final four episodes were scrapped, a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Helen Coonan claimed:
"It is purely a decision for Channel 10. They
were obviously responding to legitimate complaints from their
audience,"
It's Big Brother Cut. Herald Sun 24.06.06
Joyce however could not help himself. Claiming it was he who pressured C10 to remove the show.
Quoted from:
Ten pulls Brother after MP scalding. The Australian 24.06.06
Barnaby Joyce said yesterday he harangued the executives over Big Brother on Thursday in a meeting arranged by Ten to argue the network's case for media reform.
"I listened to what they had to say then told them in no uncertain terms that they were doing themselves no favours arguing for reforms while Big Brother was still on the air," Senator Joyce told The Weekend Australian.
Mr Joyce said the delegation argued the adults-only version, screened at 9.40pm on Mondays, had been sanitised after complaints about last year's series.
"And I said, 'The other night you had simulated anal sex on the TV just three hours after The Simpsons'," Senator Joyce said. "Tell me how I explain that to my daughter."
Senator Joyce were last night pleased with Ten's decision to scrap the adults-only version of Big Brother.
Senator Joyce said the Ten delegation had remained largely silent during his spray on Thursday. "They just sat there sheepishly, looking around for the nearest exit," he said.
***
Now this is just great.
'The other night you had simulated anal sex on the TV just three hours after The Simpsons'," Senator Joyce said. "Tell me how I explain that to my daughter."
Judging from photos, Barnaby's four children all look rather young. Which begs the question, what would his daughter be doing watching a show called BIG BROTHER: ADULTS ONLY? How about some parental responsibility Barnaby. Just because parents like you that use the TV as a babysitter, it doesn't mean that all programs should be PG! If you send her to bed after THE SIMPSONS then maybe you wouldn't have to explain anal sex to her!
***
2008: Games R18+ comments
In July 2008 Barnaby Joyce appeared on the ABC's Q&A program and had this to say about an R18+ games rating. It's his usual ill-informed ranting, ending with the another mention of his four kids.
ABC
Q&A Program
24.07.08
Question - Joab Gilroy: In 2008 there have been a number of video games banned from sale or refused classification, this is due to the fact that Australia does not have a R rat- R18 rating for video games. What does the panel think of the fact that the Australian government actively censors what its citizens can and can't see?
Answer - Sen. Barnaby Joyce: You can't just say you can see it, therefore you should be allowed to see it, otherwise you legalise snuff movies and all sorts of profane things which I don't think take our society ahead... we had the thing with amatars [sic], is that the right term, where people can actually go out and rape people. Now, this is not acceptable. You have to draw a line... you must take into account... those who are vulnerable to influence, how they would be affected by that. And if you don't, well you suffer what comes next. I, too have four kids... I want these kids to grow up in quiet, unaffected streets. And if there's someone playing a video game where they're raping someone, I'm not feeling good about the place, so, knock it out.
***
2008: Porn Magazines in Petrol Stations
During Senate Estimates he took up the cause of a group called Kids Free 2B Kids who were campaigning to have adult magazines removed from petrol stations and convenience stores. A month later it payed off with Shell/Coles Express and BP Australia dropping Category 1 magazine from their stores.
Here he is questioning the Acting Director of the Classification Board, Ms Olya Booyar.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS ESTIMATES (Supplementary Budget Estimates)
MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2008 CANBERRA
Proceedings suspended from 3.28 pm to 3.46 pm
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S PORTFOLIO
Classification Board
Senator JOYCE —At the outset my questions regard a survey that was brought into my office by some women regarding certain magazines which they had managed to pick up at certain service stations and corner stores. It talks to how these things got classification. I do not particularly want some of the titles and some of the information to go into the Hansard, so I ask for permission to have that tabled.
CHAIR —Leave is granted.
Senator JOYCE —Thank you. I will circulate that to both of the witnesses and to the senators who are present. Mr Wilkins, some of these things have received classification and they have been picked up. You can see some of the issues that are spoken to on that last page. They are direct quotes. Do you feel comfortable with those? I refer to the last page under Live Young Girls titles. Are you comfortable with that?
Mr Wilkins —Am I comfortable with the last page? What is the point of whether I am comfortable or not?
Senator JOYCE —The point is that this has received classification. It pertains to an insinuation that these girls are actually underage and that this is freely available at certain corner stores and service stations. Before I start asking questions I am asking you if you are aware of this and if you are comfortable with it.
Mr Wilkins—I do not know that it is important that I am comfortable with it or not, actually. I think that is beside the point. The question is whether they have properly complied with the standards set down by the parliament for classification, which I assume they have.
Senator JOYCE —Okay. These are the questions I am going to go into. I see that some of them have received classification: Live Young Girls, Finally Legal, Finally Legal Petite. You can imagine exactly what is in them, so I am going to ask you some questions about that. Can you please provide details on the processes of classifying magazines.
Ms Booyar—The publications get classified according to our publications guidelines and the code. They consist of three categories—unrestricted, category 1 restricted and category 2 restricted. Unrestricted magazines may be available for sale at public premises. All three classifications deal with material that is not suitable for minors to see. The unrestricted ones are marked in that way but they are not sealed in a wrapper. Category 1 magazines are available in public premises like gas stations and newsagents. They are sealed in opaque wrappers, with only the masthead visible. Category 2 magazines are available only in restricted premises—and not at all in Queensland and some parts of the Northern Territory.
Senator JOYCE—How many requests per year does the board receive from pornography distributors for classification of pornographic publications or other classifiable or sexually explicit content magazines or other literature?
Ms Booyar —I will get some advice on that. I am advised that in the last financial year the total number of applications was 250.
Senator JOYCE —How many classifiable, sexually explicit or pornographic magazine titles does the board classify each year?
Ms Booyar—The number of 250 includes all unrestricted, category 1 and category 2 restricted. There was one title that was refused classification.
Senator JOYCE —Only one title was refused classification?
Ms Booyar —Yes.
Senator JOYCE —How many, then, were classified category 1 and category 2?
Ms Booyar —One hundred and forty-five were classified category 1 restricted and 56 were classified category 2 restricted.
Senator JOYCE—Of applications received, how many publications or literature with some sexually explicit or sexual or nude content have been classified unrestricted but with conditions requiring a sealed wrapping?
Ms Booyar —The unrestricted publications normally do not require a sealed wrapper.
Senator JOYCE —Unrestricted does not require one?
Ms Booyar —No.
Senator JOYCE—Of applications received, how many publications or literature have been classified category 1 restricted with conditions requiring their display and sale in opaque sealed wrapping or without any conditions requiring sealed wrapping or opaque wrapping?
Ms Booyar —As far as I am aware, all of the category 1 publications have a condition that they be sold in a sealed and opaque wrapper.
Senator JOYCE—Is the department or board aware of pornographic titles containing sexually explicit, sexual or nude content, such as they would likely be classifiable, which have not been classified being sold openly in corner stores, petrol stations and small supermarkets?
Ms Booyar—We become aware of those from time to time and we report them to our CLS officers, and they in turn report that to the state authorities.
Senator JOYCE—Where from time to time? Does it surprise you that some ladies can bring this stuff into my office and your classification officers are not finding it?
Ms Booyar —We do not go looking for the magazines. That is the job of the CLS officers and their community liaison.
Senator JOYCE—Does the department or the board have any information or estimates on the number of pornographic titles with classifiable content that are being sold without classification in Australian states or territories?
Ms Booyar —No, we do not.
Senator JOYCE—What role does the department or the board play in ensuring titles are classified within the National Classification Scheme? I acknowledge that enforcement is largely in the hands of the states.
Ms Booyar—The board classifies whatever is submitted to the board. The publications such as those which you have brought to our attention today are all submittable publications and they all should be submitted for classification. But, as I said before, the board does not go looking for publications which should be submitted. We can classify only what is submitted to us.
Senator JOYCE—What penalties are in place for importers, distributors and sellers who import, distribute and sell unclassified literature, publications or titles that, if classified, may be restricted or even refused classification?
Ms Lynch—The enforcement provisions are mainly in state and territory legislation. We could take that question on notice and get you an answer, but I do not have the details. There would also be some Customs offences—
Senator JOYCE —So you are not aware of any penalties except those under state laws?
Ms Lynch —And possibly Customs, Senator. I could give you the details if I could take that on notice.
Senator JOYCE—Sure. In the case of periodicals, in which classification is granted for a set time or for a set number of volumes or editions, how does the department, and specifically the board, ensure that the content originally classified is reflective of later editions or volumes?
Ms Booyar—The application that the applicant fills out must be signed by the applicant to say that any future publications of that nature will be modified to the standards that the board has required. If there is a complaint made, we go back to the distributor or the applicant.
Senator JOYCE —And you are happy that is being done at the moment or is being complied with across the board?
Ms Booyar—I am not aware of whether it is complied with across the board but I am aware that the instances that come before the board are actually looked at and we follow them up.
Senator JOYCE—What penalties would be applied to publishers of periodicals who change their content such that it is no longer reflective of its classification once that classification has been made? Mr Wilkins, you might want to answer that.
Mr Wilkins —I do not know the answer to that question but I will find out for you.
Ms Booyar —If I may clarify one section of that: one of the penalties is that they have their classification revoked.
Senator JOYCE —Does the board conduct audits?
Ms Booyar —Yes, we do.
Senator JOYCE —When was the last one?
Ms Booyar —Last week.
Senator JOYCE —How many did you check?
Ms Booyar —We audit approximately 10 per cent at the very least. That is a floor for us, not a ceiling.
Senator JOYCE —What was the range of periodicals that you audited?
Ms Booyar —Mainly under restricted and category 1, and not so many under category 2.
Senator JOYCE —Who is responsible for that? You, Ms Booyar?
Ms Booyar —For the audit part, yes.
Senator BARNETT —Is that 10 per cent of the total number of publications?
Ms Booyar —Ten per cent of the publications that have a classification or a serial classification with us.
Senator BARNETT —You do an audit of that how often?
Ms Booyar—They come up at least once a week. Once a week or once every two weeks there are a number of publications that come to us for an audit.
Senator JOYCE—Can you provide details of any audits conducted in the last five years, including lists of titles which were found to be wrongly or incorrectly classified or never submitted for classification?
Ms Booyar —I will take that on notice and supply that.
Senator JOYCE—Would the department be able to detail any recent research it has conducted into the content of sexually explicit publications typically on sale in all or some of the states or territories and research specifically into the types of content and images for sale?
Ms Booyar—I am not aware of any research that the department has recently done other than in relation to the audits that the acting director has mentioned. We can take that on notice.
Senator JOYCE—Would the department detail any recent research conducted into how current classification decisions reflect or are discordant with community attitudes specifically in relation to the content of the range of periodical or other publications on sale in supermarkets, service stations and adult shops?
Ms Booyar —I will take that on notice.
Senator JOYCE—Would the board or the department please explain when themes or intimations of rape and incest are permissible in either category 1 or category 2 publications and what factors will result in a decision to refuse classification to publications whose content includes some or much reference to these themes either separately or together?
Ms Booyar—I am happy to go through that, but I can also furnish you with a copy of the guidelines which actually talk about what is in the—
Senator JOYCE—We will cut to the chase. Are you happy with intimations of rape or incest in these classifications? Are you comfortable with them? Do you have any desire to change them?
CHAIR —Senator Joyce, officers are not required to answer questions of opinion.
Mr Wilkins —That is a policy issue.
CHAIR —I would ask that you rephrase that question.
Senator JOYCE—We will bring the matter up in parliament. Would the board or department explain and detail the factors that will cause publications with content themes relating to sexual acts with minors to be either granted category 1, category 2 classification or refused classification?
Ms Booyar —Without having knowledge of a specific situation, that would ordinarily be refused classification.
Senator JOYCE—I have submitted titles to you, which I do not want to read out, and you have seen the question at the top there. Could the board advise, on the following titles, whether it considers its original ruling is consistent with the guidelines and, where it appears a title was not submitted for classification, please advise as to how the board will address that? You have seen them; what are your views?
Senator Wong—Chair, if I could just comment, while Ms Booyar is preparing to answer the question. As I understand it, a number of Senator Joyce’s questions go to the content and possibly the application of the guidelines for the classification of publications. Obviously, I am new to this committee, but I am advised that these guidelines function under a cooperative arrangement whereby they are agreed between the relevant Commonwealth state and territory ministers. I do not know whether that assists Senator Joyce in terms of the legal framework that governs the decisions that the board makes.
Senator JOYCE —Obviously, Minister, what I am trying to get at here is how we change this. This is pretty abhorrent.
Senator Wong—I appreciate your views about this, Senator. I am simply indicating my understanding of the arrangements. I do not know whether Mr Griffin has something to say.
Mr Griffin—I was involved in the early stages of the development of the cooperative scheme. This is a cooperative scheme between state and federal governments. The classification requirements are contained in federal legislation, but the offences provisions and the enforcement provisions are contained in state and territory law. Primary responsibility for enforcement lies with the states. The way to get any changes to the scheme is basically through the ministers responsible for censorship. The scheme is set up so that, under the Commonwealth act, there are criterion and principles which must be taken into consideration and then there are guidelines established by the ministers responsible for censorship. That is more the way it goes, rather than it being directly and solely a Commonwealth responsibility.
Senator JOYCE—I will have to ask these questions in the light of your working with the states. How do the states, the department and the board agree that, under the classification legislation, including the guidelines and the code, depictions of adults engaged in sexual acts with minors should be refused classification? Do you agree that it should be refused classification?
Ms Booyar —That is in the guidelines. If there are depictions of minors—I will just read it out; it is in the refused classification—
Senator JOYCE —So if I—
Senator Wong —Senator, I think Ms Booyar is finding the appropriate section of the refused classification guidelines relating to the section.
Ms Booyar —The guidelines state:
Publications that:
… … …
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not)—
would be a refused classification.
Senator JOYCE —But you have seen these titles I have just handed out. Gosh! You can read it. You know what they are intimating. They are intimating at under age. Do you believe that these titles, these statements and these quotations from these advertisements for this explicit material intimates under age—
Ms Booyar—I would have to see that in the context of the whole magazine. It is very difficult to pick out the quotes and see what they relate to. We ordinarily look at the full magazine to classify it.
Senator JOYCE —Come on, fair go. ‘Daddy’s blanks, big blanks, little blanks’—I think we know what we are talking about here.
CHAIR —Senator Joyce, can I just—
Senator JOYCE —All right, we will go back to other questions.
CHAIR—Senator Joyce, I just want to reiterate that, in the committee’s opening statement, we make a very clear statement that officers are not to be asked their opinion of matters. I think Ms Booyar has said that she would need to see this in context and, as I understand it, the Classification Review Board is the body that makes these decisions.
Senator JOYCE—Does the board or the department hold the view that the current classification register requires that, in reality, only actors be 18 years or older? What steps will the board take to ensure that such actors are in fact at majority when they are photographed?
Ms Booyar—As to whether or not they are at majority when they are photographed, the board or the panel when it sits to consider the magazine looks at a number of different criterion to determine whether it feels that the person is or is not under 18. These magazines that we are talking about do not leave a lot out. We look at their bodies, their physical characteristics and the set up in which they are photographed and we make a decision on that.
Senator JOYCE—Once more, I refer you to the last page, ‘Examples of content and advertisements from the magazines listed above,’ which the board currently have. You see that they suggest that the physical attributes of the people would suggest under age.
Ms Booyar —Again, I would have to see that in the context.
Senator JOYCE—Does the board or the department regard the fictional age depicted rather than the actors’ or the models’ ages of greater relevance to consideration than the contents’ lawfulness?
Ms Booyar —Can you say that again.
Senator JOYCE—Is how the person who is being exploited in these pictures depicted of more relevance than what their actual age is? If they are depicted as a 13-year-old girl, the fact that they are 19 is neither here nor there. It is suggested and is aimed at a market that wants to get a form of lift out of that sort of—
Ms Booyar —Again, I would have to see that in the context. It is hard for me to give you an opinion on something I have not seen.
Senator JOYCE—If the actor or model portrays a minor engaged in sexual acts or as a sexual participant with adults, would that depiction be unlawful?
Ms Booyar—Again, according to the refused classification guidelines, if it describes or depicts in a way that is likely to cause offence a person who appears to be or is a child under 18 it would be refused classification.
Senator JOYCE—How would the board ascertain whether the depiction portrays an actor or a model as a minor? Would depicting a female participant with pigtails, teddy bears, braces on her teeth, and hand puppets, in conjunction with content, narratives or titles or descriptors suggesting the character’s minor status weigh in favour of deciding that the depiction was unlawful and not able to be classified? Or has that got to be seen in the context?
Ms Booyar —What is the question?
Senator JOYCE—I am saying that if you have got a girl who is obviously depicted as a minor—young, with pigtails, teddy bears, braces on her teeth, hand puppets—in conjunction with content, narrative, titles or descriptors suggesting the minor status, does this weigh in favour of deciding that the depiction is unlawful and unable to be classified?
Ms Booyar—Again, it really has to be seen in context. In the magazines that are before the board there are sometimes people who are well into their 30s who are depicted like that and they are clearly not minors. So it is the context.
Senator JOYCE—If I can have these ladies deliver to me publications showing people who are obviously not in their 30s, would you suggest they are obviously being portrayed as minors?
Ms Booyar —We would look at that.
Senator JOYCE—They have given it to you. What I have tabled has already been sent to you. What are the penalties for importers, distributors and sellers who sell titles which have been incorrectly classified?
Senator Wong —Sorry, what are the penalties for importers—
Senator JOYCE —Distributors and sellers who sell titles which have been incorrectly classified.
Ms Williams —The penalties are contained in state and territory legislation.
Senator JOYCE —So it is a flick pass to the states and territories. The buck stops where?
Mr Griffin —Can I answer that?
Senator JOYCE —Anybody can.
Mr Griffin—I will try to assist the committee. I think ultimately the buck stops, in the first instance, with the ministers responsible for censorship but ultimately with governments, under the cooperative scheme. Whilst there may be criticism of some of the classifications which are made, the whole scheme sets out quite clearly the principles, the criteria and ultimately the guidelines which are to assist in the classification of films, publications et cetera. Whilst they are reasonably clear, ultimately there will be a measure of subjective interpretation in accordance with the context in which the various items appear, whether it is in a publication or whether it is in a DVD, video or computer game. That is the difficulty. One really does need to see the whole magazine, film, video or whatever to look at the context. But one needs to keep very much at the forefront of one’s mind the mandatory requirements such as the one that has just been referred to, and that is that if there is a publication that describes or depicts in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a person who is or appears to be a child under 18, whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not, that is refused classification both in the magazine context and also in films and videos.
Senator JOYCE —So in something like what we have here—’slutty schoolgirls’—would you presume that they were over 18 or under 18?
Senator Wong—Senator, please. Perhaps, Madam Chair, I could assist here. Can I say, Senator Joyce, that I understand your concern about these issues. I have to say I find the document you have provided most disturbing. But essentially what you seem to be asking these officers at the table is for a rationale for the classification decision the board has made in relation to these publications as against those guidelines. As Ms Booyar has indicated, that is difficult for her to do in the current context. I also understand from officers at the table that some of what you have provided—and I think you may have alluded to this—is the subject of a complaint. If you wish to continue with your questions, that is obviously your prerogative, but I wonder if it would be most helpful if the officers could be given the opportunity to consider their response, given the two contexts which I outlined.
Senator JOYCE—Minister, I want an outcome. That is the whole reason I have come down here on Monday. I have two more questions. You know what I am getting at. There is a sentiment that I am sure would go throughout this room. If people saw this they would say that it was obviously angled towards children and it has to be taken out of our agenda. That is the whole purpose of this. But I have two more questions. The first is: why have some titles which have previously received a category 2 or been refused classification by the board been given category 1 serial classification?
Ms Booyar —They would have been like that because they would have been modified.
Senator JOYCE—If, as it appears, only a small percentage of pornographic publications are presented for classification and we are ending up with hardcore pornography in convenience stores, how can the current system be effective?
Senator Wong—I am not sure Ms Booyar can answer that question. I have outlined my understanding, which is that these guidelines have been agreed by relevant ministers across jurisdictions. I think you are asking a policy opinion question of the officers, which is not something they are generally required to answer.
Senator JOYCE —Thank you very much. You have said that some of the issues are political issues. I will be pursuing them politically.
SNIP
Senator JOYCE—Madam Chair, I have got an example of something that has been classified as category 2 but appeared in a package with a category 1 label. This was the category 1 label and how it was sold:
Live young girls, boobless beauty, flat as a board—and still unexplored
How would you see that in context? Would you see that as reflecting someone over 18 or under 18?
CHAIR —What publication is that from, Senator?
Senator JOYCE —That is from a magazine. It could have been Zoo. I will check that out.
Ms Booyar —Zoo Weekly?
Senator JOYCE—How would you see that? I can get for you exactly the magazine it came from, but I want to know how you would perceive that. What age group would you say that they were suggesting in their advertising?
CHAIR—Senator Joyce, I think it is unfair for Ms Booyar to be asked to provide you with a response. You need to specifically name the magazine and then she would know whether it is submittable or not. So it is difficult to provide you with an answer if you cannot give us the name of the magazine.
Senator BRANDIS—That is complete nonsense. He has given her a block of words, which is a descriptor in a magazine, and asked her to comment on what she makes of it and whether it would be a likely reference to underage. It is not necessary and you know it as well as I do.
CHAIR —Senator Brandis, what we—
Senator BRANDIS —It is not necessary for a senator to quote a source in order to put a proposition to a witness.
CHAIR—Senator Brandis, we are talking about magazines that are out there in the public that are either submittable or not submittable magazines. For Ms Booyar to be able to answer that question as accurately as she can it would be useful to know what magazine that quote was taken from. Then she could answer the pre-eminent question of whether or not that is a submittable magazine or not.
Senator JOYCE —I can get the exact magazine and I can get you the exact date. The quote is:
Live young girls, boobless beauty, flat as a board—and still unexplored.
How would you see that—as advertising in a magazine that would be selling, for want of a better word, pictures of girls over 18 or under 18?
Ms Booyar —I would have to see that in the context of the pictures.
Senator JOYCE —I will tell you how the letter to the editor reads later on and some of the things in it. This is a quote from it:
Hello! At 71 years old, I’m a big fan of your magazine. I have a few suggestions.
Some of the girls look older that printed age (18).
Speaking for myself, I prefer to see girls that look closer to 18 rather than the older…
They cannot say ‘under 18’ because it is illegal.
…rather than the older worldly twenty something’s they sometimes tend to look like.
Hair in pigtails, school books, stuffed animals, and short schoolgirl skirts would help in this regard.
Tattoos are out! They undermine the illusion of innocence.
The editor of the magazine gets back to him and says:
Although we try to find the most innocent looking babes as possible sometimes we just cannot pass up a hot dirty, college-age cutie.
‘Although we try to find the most innocent-looking babes as possible’—so they are confirming exactly what they are trying to sell. When are we going to stop them?
Ms Booyar —I am not sure what your question is.
Senator JOYCE —The question is that it is quite obvious that we are playing a little bit of a game here. We know exactly what they are selling and they know exactly what they are selling. We are not doing our utmost to stop them. It is quite evident in the way that they advertise it and in the way that their own editors refer to what they sell that they know what they are selling. They are selling the picture and they are selling the intimation. In some cases we think they are actually selling under-age girls to dirty old men.
