Your Vote : M | Refused-Classification.com

Julian McGaurin

Vic Federal
Member of the Senate
Liberal Party

A long time pro-censorship voice in the senate. He defected from the National Party to the Liberals in January 2006. He has taken to grilling the OFLC in Senate Estimates now that Brian Harradine has departed.

***

1993: SALO'S R18+

He played an instrumental role in getting SALO re-banned in 1998. You could read the following and conclude that it developed into something of an obsession.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman
Date 31 August, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 658
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petitions, similar in wording, from 16 and 20 citizens, which are not in conformity with the standing orders as they are not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

THE PETITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED SHOWS:

We the undersigned citizens respectfully request the Committee, in its capacity as overseer of the Film Review Board, to replace the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Evan Williams, on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards, with a more responsible community representative.

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The petition of the undersigned shows that the signatories request you to exercise your authority to replace the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr. Evan Williams, with a more responsible and representative member of the community, on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards, as evidenced by his support for the release of the film `Salo'.

Senator Robert Ray—Mr President, I raise a point of order. We seem to be getting back to a stage of reading out petitions in this place when people send them in incorrectly, which gives them an advantage over those who send them in correctly. I wonder whether you might look at that and take it up with the Procedure Committee.

The PRESIDENT—I must admit that on one of the advices I received there were some extra words added today. I will look at that.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman
Date 02 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 886
Proof No Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 137 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman|
Date 02 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 886
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman Senator

McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 83 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable Attorney-General.

The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House of the release of the previously banned film `Salo', allowing it for public viewing.

Your petitioners request the House to exercise your Authority to replace the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr. Evan Williams on the grounds that he has lost touch with Community Standards.

ADJOURNMENT: Salo
Date 06 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker McGauran Sen J.J.J. (NP, VIC, Opposition)
Page 982
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Speech
Context Adjournment

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (10.30 p.m.) —This evening I wish to relate my comments to the decision of the Film and Literature Board of Review to release the movie Salo. The movie Salo is presently showing in major capital cities of Australia and represents a watershed in censorship laws in this country. My concern is as much against the clear breach of the censorship laws and the unequivocal instructions of the Commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers for tighter application of those guidelines as it is against the movie itself.

The movie Salo, made in 1976, banned in this country for some 17 years, has been released in mainstream theatres with no more than a lowly R rating and therefore there is no barrier to its release on home video. The story-line begins with the kidnap of 16 adolescents in an Italian village, eight of each sex. For the remainder of the film they are subjected to every form of violent sexual humiliation and torture before being mass slaughtered in a bizarre fashion.

I make reference to the hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies in Sydney on Thursday, 5 August 1993 to try to encapsulate the depths and darkness of the movie Salo. The committee transcript reads that the movie:

Contains constant nudity, masturbation, forced sodomy, forced urolagnia, coprophagous, humiliation and degradation, anilingus, suicide, candlewax burns to breasts and male genitalia, a man's tongue cut off, an eye explicitly gouged out with a knife, a woman partially scalped, a boy's nipples branded with a hot iron, being forced to eat excreta, torture and killing during the "Cycle of Blood" canto. Naked male and female youths forced to behave as animals going on all fours to beg for food—eventually betraying their fellows in an attempt to survive, hanging, whipping, accompanied by raconteurs' stories based on offensive, fetishes and paedophilia, a woman's verbal accounts of sex experiences as a child and of matricide, live rat forced into a girl's vagina, whilst various adults engage in sexual acts.

The movie Salo has been condemned outright by every film critic of any note. The most notable critiques came from Neil Jillet of the Age on 8 July 1993—he described the film as `vile' and a `treat for sadists and psychopaths'—and Marion Groves from the Sun-Herald who asked why the film and literature review board was so determined to provide suitable entertainment for Mr Baldy, Mr Stinky and Mr Cruel, Melbourne's notorious child molesters and murderers.

Moreover, the Victorian police headed by the office of the deputy commissioner, the head of the spectrum task force overseeing the investigations into Mr Cruel, the head of the rape squad, the head of the gaming and vice squad and the department's chief serial crime expert were instructed to see the movie and to report on the movie to the highest command. In my casual conversation with some of those who attended the movie, they told me that, following the movie, these men of the police force who had experienced many hardened situations had to take a walk down by the Yarra just to get their breath.

In a statement to the community standards committee, the conclusions of the police were affirmed by Mr Reaburn from the Attorney-General's Department when he said:

One has to doubt how it will affect the community in the long run. How many of the young men trooping in to see the film at various Twin Cinemas in our capital cities are aware of the allegorical considerations?

The community has also protested against the movie by way of letters, petitions and phone calls—the volume of which has been exceptionally large. At a meeting of the Senate select committee on community standards in Canberra on Friday, 20 August, Mr Reaburn from the Attorney-General's Department confirmed that a great many members of the community had protested directly to the Attorney-General's Department.

It is then legitimate to ask: according to whom, and on what criteria, was the movie Salo released into Australian society? The Film and Literature Board of Review, the body that is the final arbitrator of the film's classification and release, is responsible. Its chairman, Mr Evan Williams, is therefore the responsible person. Mr Williams has publicly and before the Senate community standards committee vigorously defended his decision and claims that the release of the movie can be justified on four grounds.

Those grounds are, firstly, that the movie is of artistic merit. According to Mr Williams, `It is the task of the artist, at least occasionally, to shock the old and complacent'. The second ground is that the movie would be shown only in art-house theatres, a proviso which cannot be enforced and is not mentioned in the guidelines as a relevant criteria. The third ground is that adults in a free society ought to be allowed to see whatever they like. Mr Williams confirmed his view in a letter to the Age on 15 November saying that:

. . . to deny their right to do so, I believe, is to champion a view of censorship now largely discredited in Australia.

The fourth ground for Mr Williams releasing this movie Salo may be found in his article in the Australian on 21 May 1993 when he said, `Quite simply, we thought it was a good film'.

It is my view that the position of Mr Williams as Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review is no longer tenable, and he should be dismissed. I take this view on four counts: firstly, there has been a clear breach of the guidelines for the classification of films and videotapes which he was obliged in law to apply. Under the refused classification section of the guidelines, subsection (b) has been breached. It reads:

. . . any film which includes unduly detailed and/or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty; explicit or unjustifiable depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons, will be refused classification.

Mr Williams himself has stated that the adolescents suffer `sexual torment and sadistic humiliation of an extreme kind'. Secondly, Mr Williams was in breach of the principle found in the preamble of the classification guidelines which reads:

. . . community has the right to ban material considered likely to endanger public health or safety; or to offend accepted standards of public decency.

Thirdly, he was in breach of the clear direction from the June 1988 Commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers meeting in Darwin requesting that the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review apply tighter restrictions to sexually violent films in the M and R categories. Fourthly, in my own State of Victoria, section 8(2)(c) of the Classification of Films and Publications Act 1990 provides:

. . . that a censor must refuse to classify a film that depicts a child (whether engaged in sexual activity or otherwise) who is, or who is apparently, under the age of 16 years in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person.

Not only do I believe that Mr Williams' position is no longer tenable because of the flagrant breaches of the above but also I question his competence to be a judge of community standards. This belief was confirmed by the incredible assertion by Mr Williams that he could see no evidence to link a level of sexually violent crime to sexually violent movies. His opinion clearly shows poor judgment and it could be supported only by a very small minority of people in society.

It is clear from the committee hearings that community views were never a touchstone in the film and literature review board's decision making process; rather, the artistic value of the movie and the freedom of expression of the director overrode community standards. Mr Williams is employed to apply the law, not to make it up. These boards are made up of appointed officials; they are not elected. For this reason they cannot be allowed to roam free, interpreting the guidelines as they might, inventing new criteria and then being unaccountable to the community and protected from criticism by government departments.

As public representatives, we are here to represent the standards of the community as well as the public sentiment towards issues that arise from time to time. As a public servant, Mr Williams is obliged in law to follow the guidelines which are laid down by the parliament. He and other members of the board are not at liberty to substitute their own philosophical judgments, as they have done. I therefore put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and the other senators present in the chamber, to join me in calling for the dismissal of Mr Evan Williams, since the only appropriate signal we can make to the community is that we will not tolerate breaches of the guidelines which place the safety of our citizens in peril. This will no doubt send a clear signal to a worried community that any member or chairperson of the film and literature review board is accountable for his or her actions. I agree with Mr Williams on one point, when he said:

Salo presents us with the most stringent test to date.

I say clearly that the release of Salo was a deliberate challenge to the community standards and, therefore, a watershed in this country's censorship laws. To leave the matter undisputed would signal a collapse of Australia's censorship laws. I finish by quoting the last paragraph in today's Age editorial, Monday 6 September, which I believe clearly relates to the release of the movie Salo:

The unacceptable alternative is simply to wish our children luck as they ride the pendulum of censorship towards the outer limits.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review

Date 07 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 1008
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 13 citizens, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The petition of the undersigned shows that the signatories request you to exercise your authority to replace the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr Evan Williams, with a more responsible and representative member of the community, on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards, as evidenced by his support for the release of the film `Salo'.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman
Date 14 December, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 4512
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the standing orders, from 12 citizens requesting that the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr Evan Williams, be replaced with a more responsible and representative member of the community on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Petitions and petitioning letters received.

***

1994: The OFLC's computer

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT: Program 3--Community affairs: Subprogram 3.3--Office of Film and Literature Classification
Date 24 February, 1994
Committee name ESTIMATES COMMITTEE F
Department ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT Program
Program 3--Community affairs
Sub program Subprogram 3.3--Office of Film and Literature Classification
Page 34
Proof NO
Database Estimates Comm.
Source SENATE

Senator McGAURAN --Could you just explain the use of this new computer? What is it and what is it for?

Mr Reaburn --It is to replace the current system, Senator. The current system is old and starting to fall apart.

Senator McGAURAN --What does it do?

Mr Reaburn --It keeps the OFLC's records--its financial records, its accounting records, its classification records.

Senator McGAURAN --How would it help the decision-making of the Office of Film and Literary Classification--

Mr Reaburn --How would it help?

Senator McGAURAN --In making its classifications?

Senator Bolkus --Can you actually rule questions out for stupidity? I am sorry, you are talking about the Office of Film and Literary Classification.

Senator McGAURAN --That is correct.

Senator Bolkus --And as a unit it has a computer.

Senator McGAURAN --Yes.

Senator Bolkus --And a computer is part of the process. It actually helps run the office.

Senator McGAURAN --Yes, but there are also priorities in expenditure. I have supplementary questions once I establish why you sought that as a priority over obvious other priorities within the office, such as better decision-making in making its classifications.

Senator Bolkus --Mr Chairman, I just do not know that this actually goes to the specifics of the item before us--

Senator McGAURAN --Well, allow some questions to go by and we will see.

Senator VANSTONE --Minister, perhaps if I can help here.

Senator Bolkus --Yes, you might.

Senator VANSTONE --I just think the point that the senator is making is to say you have spent $18,000. The purpose of his question is not concerned with whether you have bought a bucket of carrots, peas or a computer. What he is asking is: what were the priorities that you were not able to proceed with, or that led you to decide that you had to have this rather than something else? All spending decisions have a priority and he simply is asking you: what are the ones just under this that would have missed out? That is all. Actually, there is an assumption there that you actually have some priorities.

CHAIRMAN --The officer is trying to give a response.

Mr Reaburn --The point about it is that the current computer system, which is used for all the sorts of things that you would use a computer system in an office for--particularly in terms of record-keeping and particularly in terms of keeping the classification database, which is the record of classification decisions--is wearing out.

We have been advised by the manufacturer of the equipment that within a certain specified time it will no longer be in a position to maintain that particular old equipment and it has to be replaced. It is a simple, straightforward exercise in replacing equipment within an office with new and updated equipment when it gets old and starts to wear out.

Senator McGAURAN --How will this computer help the board itself in making its decisions towards classification of film making?

Mr Reaburn --Because the computer contains the classification database, it will help the board maintain consistency in its approach to classification decisions.

Senator McGAURAN --And expenditure on the computer is a priority over and above other matters such as those reported in the Senate standing committee which I think were greater priorities in making decisions about classifications. If you are given expenditure, would it not have been better to have taken the priorities set in this Senate committee rather than go out and buy a new computer?

Mr Reaburn --Which priorities, Senator?

Senator McGAURAN --Such as exposing the board to greater community consultation. That costs money. It costs money to broaden your consultation and to make the board more community based. It costs money to expand the consultation process. I think that would have been a--

Mr Reaburn --The board and the other statutory officers are exposed to community consultation and they do it quite extensively, so we are spending money on that particular process--

Senator McGAURAN --Extra money, over and above?

Mr Reaburn --Already.

Senator McGAURAN --Why is it not reported here?

Senator Bolkus --We are talking about supplementary estimates, you dork.

Senator McGAURAN --I know.

Senator Bolkus --Maybe if you had had a computer in your operation back in Melbourne you might still have your hotels. We are talking about the administration of an office. It has been explained to you that it was felt that the computer needed upgrading. I do not really think we can take this much further. I withdraw the word `dork'.

Senator VANSTONE --Mr Chairman, before you make whatever ruling you choose to make, these estimates generally are conducted in a reasonably hospitable atmosphere. There are plenty of remarks made, sometimes quite properly, when people on this side of the table do not conduct themselves in a generally pleasant and courteous manner to people on your side of the table. The remark you just made with respect to the assistance that Senator McGauran and his family may have chosen to make of a computer really sits you with some whom you would normally criticise yourself. It just does not help the pleasant flow of each of us trying to do our work.

Senator McGAURAN --I seek a withdrawal on that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN --I will go back to 3.3.

Senator McGAURAN --Mr Chairman, in the matter of fairness, I would seek a withdrawal of the minister's comment.

CHAIRMAN --I must admit that I did not hear the minister's comment.

Senator McGAURAN --I would ask him to repeat it.

Senator Bolkus --Just to ensure the process continues, I withdraw. There was nothing unparliamentary in what I said, but in order to make Senator McGauran feel better and for the committee and in order that we can continue, I withdraw.

CHAIRMAN --We are back into pleasant mode. Is there anything further on 3.3?

Senator McGAURAN --Yes. Have I been ruled out of order?

CHAIRMAN --No, but I think you got your answer.

Senator McGAURAN --I would say this: from the Senate committee report, the Attorney-General's Department advised the committee that in relation to the movie Salo, where the biggest mistake has been made by this Office of Film and Literature Classification board, basically the board was unaware of its legal obligations--

Senator Bolkus --Mr Chairman, on a point of order, I think we are now very much outside the parameters of additional estimates. We are talking about a specific case, a Senate committee report--

CHAIRMAN --The questioning should really be, `Did the computer need to be replaced or did it not?'. I think you have got your answer.

Senator McGAURAN --Are you ruling me out of order, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRMAN --I am saying what the parameters of the question should be.

Senator McGAURAN --I guess I am just trying to set priorities. If you have got just a certain amount to spend, what should be your priority? A computer--

CHAIRMAN --I think the officers have answered that.

Senator McGAURAN --So I take it the computer was the priority over and above other serious matters within the office of the Film and Literature Board of Review classification where the same amount could be spent.

Mr Reaburn --I would not say that. The OFLC regards a lot of things as being of priority, and at this time the computer is one of them.

Senator McGAURAN --If you are given $18,000, it must be the one, because I see no other additional expenditures.

Mr Reaburn --The reason why there is $18,000 in the additional estimates is that the budget contained a sum of money for the replacement of the computer which had been arrived at as a consequence of negotiations with the Department of Finance in accordance with the normal rules about replacement of equipment like computers. Those negotiations, at the time of the finalisation of the budget, were not quite complete. This particular figure represents the final stage of the negotiations between the OFLC and the Department of Finance. It does not indicate that, in a sudden and surprising sense, the OFLC picked the computer as its only priority for this particular financial year. It reflects the particular workings out of the nature of discussions for the replacement of equipment.

Mr Rose --Perhaps it is fundamental to the way the appropriation process works that--

CHAIRMAN --I am not sure that we need to go into that detail.

***

1994: SALO's R18+

Petition: Film and Literature Board
Date 24 March, 1994
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 2136
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board Senator

McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 22 citizens, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

***

1997: SALO at the Review Board

ADJOURNMENT: Film Censorship
Date 28 October, 1997
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker McGauran, Sen Julian (NP, VIC, Government)
Page 8268
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Speech
Context Adjournment

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria)(7.26 p.m.) —Anyone who picked up today's Sydney Morning Herald to read the grim news that in the past 11 months six young women and teenage girls have been kidnapped or murdered or have disappeared along the New South Wales coastal highway would feel grief for the families and grave concern for society. There have been other like tragedies over the years and of late—for example, the missing 11-year-old boy from Western Australia—that make us think just how unsafe society has become.

Our concern is not just restricted to Australia. Who can forget the pictures that ricocheted around the world of the Belgium `house of horrors' where a paedophile ring was involved in the kidnapping, torture and murder of children as young as eight years old? At each tragedy a family suffers and a society is damaged. At each tragedy society fundamentally changes for the worse as once enjoyed freedoms are taken away, none less than life itself.

Therefore, if we were asked, `Is there something society can do to help rectify these seemingly irreversible changes?' we would answer yes. If we were told that there was a movie currently showing that graphically displays a story of kidnap, sexual abuse, torture and murder of adolescents in the style of the above incidents I have mentioned—indeed, a movie described as a handbook for the Mr Cruels of this world—would you believe that it should be banned? The answer from society would be yes.

I therefore bring to the Senate's attention the movie Salo, which is currently under review by the Film and Literature Board of Review. The review has been prompted by an application by the Queensland government to re-ban the movie. The movie Salo was made in 1976 and banned in this country for some 17 years but was released into the mainstream theatres in 1993. The storyline begins with the kidnap of 16 adolescents in an Italian village, eight of each sex. For the remainder of the film, they are subjected to every form of violence, sexual humiliation and torture before being mass slaughtered in a most bizarre fashion. The movie has been condemned outright by every film critic of any note, being described as vile and a treat for sadists and psychopaths.

And there is much, much worse. Other descriptions are so graphic that I am prevented from citing them to the Senate. It is legitimate then to ask: according to whom and under what criteria was the movie Salo released into Australian society? In essence, the movie was released in 1993. The words of the Chairman of the then Film and Literature Review Board were that `adults in a free society ought to be allowed to see whatever they like'. He also said the movie has artistic merit even though the same chairman stated that the adolescents suffer sexual torment and sadistic humiliation of the extreme kind.

Thankfully it is a very different Film and Literature Review Board in 1997 from what it was in 1993 when the ban was lifted on the movie. In fact, the board is in transition, with three new members soon to be appointed. The pending decision before the new review board will be to either redraw the line in the sand on censorship or continue to ride the pendulum of censorship towards the outer limits. I am sure that if the board were to use the community as their touchstone on this issue the movie would surely be re-banned.

The time has come to say the censorship decisions in this country should not be underpinned by the motto `adults should be free to see whatever they like without regard to the cost to society'. For that matter, the time has come to bury that other reason the movie was released—artistic merit. This so often used catch phrase to release movies like Salo is an indulgent, sectional and narcissistic view and hurts the general good of society. Both tenets of faith are now discredited, particularly given the belief and evidence that a diet of violent and sexually abusive videos and movies will trigger the disturbed mind. Both tenets can no longer underpin our censorship philosophy to the exclusion of protecting a decent and accepted social standard. Therefore, each member of the Film and Literature Board of Review should vote to re-ban Salo.

***

2000: Standards at the OFLC

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) CHARGES BILL 1998; CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 1998: Second Reading
Date 09 March, 2000
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker McGauran, Sen Julian (NP, Victoria, Government)
Interjector Forshaw, Sen Michael; Lightfoot, Ross (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
Page 12484
Proof No
Source Senate
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bills

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (11.05 a.m.)—I wish to speak for a very short time and thank the minister for giving me this time to respond to Senator Schacht's address to the Senate in which he raised the whole issue of censorship. It is a broad issue and a grey area, because views range from one end of the spectrum to the other. It should be noted that since this government came into power in 1996 there have been many changes to our censorship laws. I suppose on any analysis they have been made more conservative and certainly more understandable than they were prior to us coming into government. We believe that those changes have been, on any analysis, community based, and in fact, community accepted, if not community demanded.

A great deal of those changes were prompted by the movie Salo, which was the movie that explicitly showed minors being exploited. That was the line in the sand and since then there have been many reviews of our censorship board and censorship laws. For example—and what could be wrong with this?—the censorship board has been changed so that it is far more community based. More people are being appointed to the board from the community than previously. Previously the board was far more representative of the arts community and critics. The board did not have community based people and it lacked a number of women. That has also changed. There are now more women on the censorship board and the review board. What can be wrong with that?

Further to that, the government has looked at the classifications. I am not so sure that they have been as much tightened up as better defined, more crystal clear. More commonsense has been brought to the censorship debate. Senator Schacht thinks that is a trend, that we have gone too far. We would object to his analysis and say it is far more community based and responsive to the community. We believe the community wants a line drawn in the sand. We do not win them all. Senator Harradine does not win them all. Recently, the movie Romance was released to our screens. There was an outcry in relation to that movie, that it is more explicit than we have ever seen, but it falls under the threshold, I would say, of Salo, which was exploitation of minors.

Interjection Senator Forshaw—That wasn't the outcry at all; the outcry was because the movie was banned.

Interjection The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Order!

Continue Senator McGAURAN—I am being properly and rightly advised to ignore that. But my point is we do not have draconian censorship laws in the community at all. Of late there has been in the press information or news that the coalition is reassessing its classification of X to NVE. We have simply pulled that legislation out to reassess it, to discuss it, to get a greater community response. If there is any doubt on it we will look at it again. We are simply re-studying it. The National Party are unashamed—always have been; I do not know why you think we would change or why you would want us to change—social conservatives. There are all types in this parliament. There are the Senator Schachts and then there is the National Party, and the two will never meet. It is as simple as that.

I would not get too excited about the re-examination of the classification, because we simply want to make the labelling far more commonsense, far more understandable, so when you pull it off the shelf in the ACT or the Northern Territory you know what you are getting. That is community based, that is community responsive and it is commonsense. As for Senator Schacht's attack on the whole of the Catholic Church, I would say that is utterly irrelevant to this debate and says more about the man than the issue.

***

2005: IRREVERSIBLE'S R18+

With SALO banned he turned his attention to IRREVERSIBLE.

Date: 24 May, 2005
Department: attorney-general's portfolio
Database: Estimates Comm.
Committee name: LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Program: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Proof: Yes
Page: 103
Source: Senate

CHAIR—Do you have any questions, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN—First of all, I want to ask you about the movie Irreversible, which you classified R. I would like to run through a few things. Do you think the violent rape and murder scene was demeaning to the victim, Mr Clark?

Mr Clark—The board, in looking at the film, decided that the scene was certainly very disturbing.

Senator McGAURAN—Demeaning to the victim?

Mr Clark—A portrayal of this type is demeaning to the victim but, in a narrative context—

Senator McGAURAN—No, that is all I wanted—in the narrow context.

Mr Clark—Yes.

Senator McGAURAN—According to the classification code, demeaning refers to ‘depiction directly or indirectly sexual in nature, which debase or appear to debase the person or character depicted’—so, it was for the victim. Is that how you took it?

Mr Clark—The board does not use the word ‘demeaning’ in its board report in relation to this film, as I recall. The actual fictional portrayal in the film could be considered demeaning, I agree with you there. But the actual film, as it is made, does not demean the victim because it is a fictional narrative that is being portrayed on film.

Senator McGAURAN—So, have you changed your mind? Is it demeaning to the victim?

Mr Clark—In the fictional sense that that is what it is, one could say that. But the board report does not talk about demeaning.

Senator McGAURAN—But it is to be taken in as part of the—

Mr Clark—It says it is high in impact

Senator McGAURAN—But it is not part of your judgment, the demeaning factor?

Mr Clark—If you were talking about a real event such as this, yes—

Senator McGAURAN—Like a documentary?

Mr Clark—But we are talking about a fictional event, not a documentary. In that context, it is not.

Senator McGAURAN—So, if it is a documentary, therefore filming real—it is demeaning.

Mr Clark—It could be.

Senator McGAURAN—It could be demeaning. But, because it is two actors, indeed, it is not demeaning. Is that what you are saying?

Mr Clark—That is correct.

Senator McGAURAN—So, I take it you believe that that rape-murder scene is not demeaning.

Mr Clark—In the context of this film, the board did not find that the scene was a demeaning portrayal, because it is a fictional portrayal in the context of a film which has high impact.

Senator McGAURAN—Most of the films, if not all, are fictional, aren’t they?

Mr Clark—The majority of public exhibition are fictional. There are occasional—

Senator McGAURAN—So your judgments are made on fiction—

CHAIR—Senator, if you could let Mr Clark at least finish his answers, I think it would be helpful to proceedings.

Senator McGAURAN—Okay.

Mr Clark—Senator, there are occasional documentaries which are features. There are occasionally films which would be refused classification which may have demeaning content in the view of the board. So a film which in the view of the board is demeaning is most likely to be refused classification.

Senator McGAURAN—All right. I will take it that you did not think that that particular scene was demeaning to the victim.

Mr Clark—The board did not.

Senator McGAURAN—The board.

Senator Ellison—I think it is clear that Mr Clark can only speak for the board. It is the board that does the classification, as I understand it, not Mr Clark.

CHAIR—Thank you, Minister.

Senator McGAURAN—Okay. He is the chief censor though. The buck stops at your desk, doesn’t it, Mr Clark?

Mr Clark—I carry responsibility of the OFLC and the classification board as chairman of the board—

Senator McGAURAN—Do you have a casting vote?

Mr Clark—At the end of the day, the board votes—

Senator McGAURAN—Do you have a casting vote?

Mr Clark—and, after that, I do have a casting vote.

Senator McGAURAN—Well, that makes you the real focus. How tight was this vote?

Mr Clark—It was not a casting vote situation. It was certainly a split decision by the board—

Senator McGAURAN—But you do not want to be too light about—

Mr Clark—Sorry, it was a unanimous decision.

Senator McGAURAN—shifting it onto the board: ‘The board makes all these decisions.’ You are the chief censor, you are the public face and you are the chairman with the casting vote. If you do not in your position—you certainly get paid more than the others, I suspect—carry some authority and responsibility, I would be surprised.

Mr Clark—The board is a board of statutory appointees who are expected to be independent in their decision making. The board cannot be directed by the chair as to how they should vote. The board will vote according to their view on the matter that is before them. Sometimes they vote unanimously, sometimes there will be a split decision. Rarely is there a situation where there is a casting vote.

Senator McGAURAN—All right. I will not go down that track. I was not meaning to. We will keep it tight, Madam Chair. Did you think that in that particular scene—I must not fall into the trap of continually repeating it—the victim was exploited?

Mr Clark—I find it difficult, because it is a fictional story that is being told. It is represented in a very violent manner.

Senator McGAURAN—Why I focus on this scene is that if you took that scene out it could well have been an MA.

Mr Clark—That is the problem—

Senator McGAURAN—I am focusing on that scene because that is where the classification came in—on that scene. I would say that was the dominant classifier—whether it was an R, an X or RC.

Mr Clark—No, I believe it would still have been an R-rated film because of the murder sequence that precedes that.

Senator McGAURAN—All right then. I did not quite get your answer. Do you think the victim was exploited?

Mr Clark—Senator, it goes back to this division between what is a real event where one could say, ‘Yes, that is the case.’ In this event you have actors who are willingly being paid to act a scene in a movie—

Senator McGAURAN—Well, we may as well revoke the whole thing if that is the case. If that is how you are going to judge it—by whether it is a documentary or a film—we may as well get rid of this.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, let me make it quite clear.

Senator McGAURAN—It is a joke!

CHAIR—In this committee we allow witnesses to complete answers to their questions, we do not interrupt them and we proceed in an orderly fashion. If you would let Mr Clark complete the answers to his questions—

Senator McGAURAN—Offensive answers.

CHAIR—You may find the answers offensive or not, as the case may be—

Senator McGAURAN—Why don’t you put that in your report if that is your view now? Why don’t you put that in your report?

CHAIR—Mr Clark, if you would like to complete your answer to this question, Senator McGauran will ask his next question.

Mr Clark—Senator, the film runs for some 98 minutes. This particular scene, as I recall, is about nine minutes in the context of that film. Yes, it is very strong in content. The board was of the view that the actual rape scene was one where the lack of detail in it, although it was still very high in the R classification, permitted it to stay within the R classification category, particularly given the broader context of the film. If you have seen the film, the film ends on a note where you have very happy, innocent people going to a party. This makes the impact of the film even stronger in some respects, but it diminishes in the length of the film. Taking the scene out of context as a fictional narrative is not helping. Overall, yes, this film is very high in impact. Yes, two scenes in particular are in the top end of R—the board recognised that—but they can be accommodated in the R classification.

Senator McGAURAN—I am referring to the classification code here and under R-rated it specifically lists these criteria which I am pointing out to you. Here is another one. To you think that particular scene, which was dominant in the movie, depicts cruelty?

Mr Clark—It depicts a very violent rape scene.

Senator McGAURAN—Do you think it was implied?

Senator Ellison—Can I say something here which may be of assistance to everyone. Senator McGauran has now struck on the way the question should be put, and that is: what does it depict? The question is, did it demean the victim? Of course it was, as Mr Clark says, a fictional movie and the question is all of depiction—what did it depict? That might make it easier for Mr Clark to answer questions if Senator McGauran puts it in that term: did it depict this sort of thing? It is a fictional film which is depicting certain things. I think that is better wording to put in a question to Mr Clark.

Senator McGAURAN—You cannot just isolate scenes, Mr Clark, because scenes are often taken out and clipped—indeed, recut sometimes in extreme cases—to make a classification. That is a red herring you are putting up, without question. I will move on. But you can see my point. I am trying to read the code here which says ‘a high degree of exploitation’ and whether the sexual violence may be implied. It certainly was implied, wasn’t it, the scene? It was pretty obvious.

Mr Clark—Are you reading from the code? I have the code here. I think you may have the old guidelines for classification, not the code. The code says that we need to ‘take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and the portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner’. They are the code words. It does not condone or incite, in my view, but it certainly is a depiction of violence, and sexual violence. Certainly I am not isolating that scene. With respect, I think you are isolating that scene and I am trying to put that scene into the context of the entire film.

Senator McGAURAN—You are trying to merge it into the greater film. Quite frankly, one scene can ruin a whole film’s classification.

Mr Clark—I agree.

Senator McGAURAN—Good. Stop trying to spread it so thin across the whole movie. It is a paramount part of the movie. But moving on, Madam Chair, many years ago I was involved in a movie called Salo, which was eventually banned.

Senator LUDWIG—Did you appear in it?

Senator McGAURAN—Pardon?

Senator LUDWIG—You said you were involved in it.

Senator McGAURAN—I was involved in getting it banned.

Senator LUDWIG—I see.

Senator McGAURAN—There was a scene of a 16-year-old girl or under raped and the movie was banned. What has changed so that Irreversible, which has I think under any viewing a worse scene, is allowed?

Mr Clark—I was not involved in the decision regarding that film, Senator, and I do not have access to the board report on that film at the moment. As you have described it, a 16-year-old girl would heighten the impact of a scene such as that. I cannot give you a detailed answer, but certainly that would be part of the consideration by the board.

Senator McGAURAN—So the 16-year-old girl’s scene is a worse scene—

Mr Clark—A child, under the age of 18, yes.

Senator McGAURAN—than what is depicted in Irreversible—a mature woman?

Mr Clark—The detail of the scene in Irreversible is not high; it is not a detailed scene. Yes, it is long, but it is not detailed. As I do not have knowledge of the other scene, I am unable to make a judgment on it.

Senator Ellison—I point out that if you had a depiction of a sexual act in that situation with a person under 18, it could well infringe the child pornography laws that we have enacted. I can get back to Senator McGauran on that if he is interested, but I think our new laws could catch a situation of that sort where a child is being abused in that fashion.

Senator McGAURAN—That is exactly why the movie was banned. Whatever laws exist now regarding the classification scheme also existed then.

Senator Ellison—I raise that to point out the current status—

Senator McGAURAN—You have told me what has changed since the banning of that one—that the difference regarding the rape scenes relates to the age of the person. Under those circumstances, the Report on the review of the operation of the 2003 guidelines for the classification of films and computer games—I forget who undertook that review—

Mr Jordana—The report was undertaken by a consultant named Kate Aisbett.

Senator McGAURAN—One of the key findings of the report was:

There is no discernible shift in the nature of permissible material within particular classification categories ...

So from the old category to the new category there has been no discernible shift.

Mr Clark—From the old classification guidelines to the new guidelines, the 2003 guidelines, her finding was that there has been no shift in the standards contained within the guidelines.

Senator McGAURAN—And you agree with that?

Mr Clark—Yes, Senator, I do.

Senator McGAURAN—Turning to another movie, 9 Songs, in the review board’s own report it is admitted that this movie has pushed all the boundaries; that it has taken the next step and broken the record. It states:

No previous movie in Australia has been classified R by the review board where it contains a prolonged, detailed scene of explicit ....

It is talking about sex, basically. So it has pushed the boundaries. To me, it has gone over the boundaries, but it has pushed the boundaries. This movie, 9 Songs, is a first. So there has been a distinct change. When a movie like Salo can be banned, with lesser degree scenes than either Irreversible or 9 Songs, it means that there has been a discernible shift in the interpretation of the code, and that the new code itself is different from the old one. Do you agree that 9 Songs is a movie like no other that has been released?

Mr Clark—Senator, because it is a decision of the Classification Review Board, I really do not want to comment on the decision. Certainly, as I understand it, the amount of actual sex contained in the film is greater than we have seen before—not a huge amount greater, but certainly there is a greater amount of actual sex in the film than in any other film before. But that is a decision regarding interpretation of the guidelines, not a change in the standards contained in the guidelines. With respect to the guidelines for sex at the R level, the words used in these guidelines and in the old guidelines are the same.

Senator McGAURAN—They are the same. So you are saying there has been a change in the interpretation of the guidelines. There has been a discernible shift.

Mr Clark—It is for the review board to interpret the guidelines. I cannot comment on that.

Senator McGAURAN—What are we to make of this report that goes to the minister, no less? It says:

There is no discernible shift in the nature of permissible material within particular classification categories ...

But there has. 9 Songs proves there has been a discernible shift. We have a first on our screens. Anyway, continuing on, if I may.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, I want to alert you to the fact that the committee does have a very significant time constraint tonight. We have the entire estimates for the Australian Customs Service to examine this evening and we are running very short of time. Could you give the committee some indication of how long you might wish to spend with the OFLC?

Senator McGAURAN—Barring sidetracks—

CHAIR—Whose—yours or ours?

Senator McGAURAN—Probably mine—20 minutes.

CHAIR—Could we review that in 10?

Senator McGAURAN—Yes.

Senator Ellison—Perhaps we can also take some questions on notice.

CHAIR—That would be very helpful to the committee.

Senator Ellison—We want to ensure that Senator McGauran gets all his questions up.

CHAIR—Absolutely.

Senator McGAURAN—I have a letter here from the Attorney-General on a certain matter. I will read you a paragraph of it. It says:

However, Board and Review Board members, as statutory appointees, endeavour to make decisions which are as objective as possible, on behalf of the community and not as personal opinions. In other words, the boards apply what they consider to be the standards of reasonable adults in the community, rather than the personal standards of members.

Take into account that Philip Ruddock has quoted that you take community views into account. In a letter to Senator Harradine, from Minister Ruddock, he says that, in the case of 9 Songs, consumer advice was sought. Can you tell me what community opinion was sought when you reviewed the movie?

Mr Clark—Sorry, Senator, would you repeat the last phrase.

Senator McGAURAN—That community views were taken into account with regard to 9 Songs. He says that to me. He calls it consumer but in my letter he calls it community. You know what he is getting at. In fact, it is even part of your brief. Isn’t it your brief to take in community views?

Mr Clark—The classification board is broadly representative of the Australian community and, in making decisions, it plays out that role. In the ordering of the business of the board, often a board member may alone or with one or two others be in a position to have to make a decision on the classification of a product. In making a decision in that manner, they need to have regard to the views of the whole board. The whole board does have a range of views and they need to seek to reflect that in a decision. If they do not think they can do that, they will go back for a re-screen or another consideration of the product. When the classification board meets as a whole, they will more specifically articulate their own views in relation to their classification decision but they all have regard to and respect the views of the other members of the board. They have a vigorous discussion and then come to a decision so that, in making a decision, they are fulfilling the board’s statutory function, which is to be broadly representative of the Australian community. That is why they are there.

Senator McGAURAN—Am I to take it from that answer that they do assert their personal opinions?

Mr Clark—I have described to you the two ways in which they work. One is that it is a collective view of the board and, yes, in other circumstances they will have vigorous discussion. But, as I say, they have respect for it. It is not about being representative of any particular group; they just have to have regard to broad views in the community. As you appreciate, that is not going to suit everybody. Not everybody is going to be happy with those decisions.

Senator McGAURAN—I see your point but Mr Ruddock would not because he says you do not take into account your personal views—but you do bring your experience and broad views to the board I am sure. But it is clear not only from Mr Ruddock’s letter to Senator Harradine and to me with regard to 9 Songs and according to your charter that you must take into account community views, whatever way you do it.

Mr Clark—Yes, correct.

Senator McGAURAN—Specifically in relation to 9 Songs, how did you take into account community views?

Mr Clark—Senator, as I described to you, we are there because of the fact that the board members are widely experienced in the community. They participate in the community. They come from all over Australia from all sorts of geographic origins. In doing that, part of their function is to reflect the community. Therefore they do that in their day-to-day decision making. In testing our decisions, in saying, ‘Are we consistent with the community?’ we have done the community assessment panels in the past 10 months, and these are saying that the board is making decisions which are broadly consistent with community standards in terms of the focus groups done as part of that. The operational review has looked at that and there has been significant consultation there, talking with people about decisions being made by the board as to whether there has been a change in standards within the 2003 guidelines. In addition to that, the actual process for establishing the guidelines and developing the new guidelines once again involved a very extensive consultation process. So we are testing all the time. We do not just go out on one decision and say, ‘Are we consistent with community views?’ There is this ongoing process of research and finding out, ‘Are we in the right place?’ and broadly saying to us, ‘Yes you are.’

Senator McGAURAN—Then why did you, in reflecting community views, differ from the review board?

Mr Clark—That is the system, and the way the system operates—

Senator McGAURAN—They have a different outlook from the community view.

Mr Clark—The review board makes a new decision, and from time to time the review board will make a decision at a higher classification level, the same level or a lower level. That is another test of the system and that is the function of the review board. It is a new decision. They use the same tools we use in the process.

Senator McGAURAN—They have the same community touchstone you do.

Mr Clark—Yes, and they use the guidelines, the same code and the same sections of the act to come up with a decision. From time to time they will come up with a different decision, and that is demonstrating that the classification system is working.

Senator McGAURAN—The classification system makes it quite clear that bondage is inadmissible in a movie. Did you find that there was any bondage in 9 Songs? It is not even a point of discretion; it is out.

Mr Clark—The board came to a different view from the review board in relation to one scene in the—

Senator McGAURAN—Did you? Did your board find bondage—

CHAIR—Senator, Mr Clark is answering your question.

Mr Clark—In looking at that scene the board was of the view that this w

as a more of a role-play situation than a bondage situation. The board are very familiar with what a bondage situation is and were of a view that this was not the sort of activity that could be described as bondage in the sense of what they are accustomed to seeing in classifying or refusing classification to material that would seek to be an X-rated movie.

Senator McGAURAN—So it was role playing, not bondage?

Mr Clark—They are the words used in the board report in relation to this film.

Senator McGAURAN—The review board—the other mob—deemed it as bondage. They knew it to be.

Mr Clark—They did, but they also deemed it to be very mild as well in that context.

Senator McGAURAN—Did you read anything in the classification that it says mild bondage is all right but hard bondage is not?

Mr Clark—I did not describe it as mild bondage. That is the decision of the review board and I am not in a position to comment on a decision by the review board. I can only say that in coming to an X classification on the film 9 Songs and looking at that scene, they were of the view that it was not a serious bondage scene but more of a role-play scene.

Senator McGAURAN—So they have used their discretion about what is a serious bondage scene and what is a mild bondage scene. Though they accept that it is bondage and you do not—

Mr Clark—In the guidelines it just says:
Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, ‘golden showers’, bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted.
The board was of the view that this was not bondage.

Senator McGAURAN—Yes, I know. But the review board was of the view that it was. Once you accept that it is, there is no room for discretion, be it mild or hard bondage or whatever you want to call it.

Mr Clark—The board was of the view that it was not bondage. If it was bondage in the view of the board, it would have been refused classification.

Senator McGAURAN—You are all getting very muddled. You do not think it is bondage and therefore it would not be refused classification on that basis. The review board thinks it is bondage and yet gives it classification. What a right muddle. Where are they? Are they here?

Mr Clark—The convener can be called, but she is not here. I would be very happy to take that on notice for a response from the convener of the Classification Review Board.

Senator McGAURAN—Chair, why isn’t there anyone here from the review board?

CHAIR—Would you like that taken on notice, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN—To whom?

CHAIR—To the convener of the review board.

Senator McGAURAN—To answer that question?

CHAIR—Yes.

Senator McGAURAN—It was a statement.

Senator LUDWIG—You cannot make a statement.

CHAIR—We actually deal in questions and answers here.

Senator McGAURAN—You are all muddled. All right, let her answer this: why are you all so muddled?

CHAIR—I do not think that is the question. The question is a specific question you were asking about 9Songs. That was my understanding.

Senator McGAURAN—All right. If she can possibly answer that, I would appreciate it.

Senator Ellison—We will take that on notice.

Senator McGAURAN—On 14 February Senator Harradine asked you:
Do you take the pornographic intent into consideration?
You answered:
If the intent is purely pornographic I am sure that the board will apply the guidelines very rigidly.
So if the intent is pornographic, you will certainly take that into account. Did you find the movie pornographic?

Mr Clark—Do you mean 9 Songs?

Senator McGAURAN—Yes.

Mr Clark—If I can go to the same estimates, I replied to Senator Harradine that the guidelines do not actually use the word ‘pornographic’ and nor does the code. Sexually explicit intent would place the film into an X classification, which is what the board did.

Senator McGAURAN—I am only quoting you back. You said:
If the intent is purely pornographic I am sure that the board will apply the guidelines very rigidly.

Mr Clark—And then I clarified that. I said that it does not use the word ‘pornographic’ in any of the instruments or tools that the board uses. That word does not appear. So the board is classifying it X in the sense that it is a special classification with sexually explicit material in it. That word is not used anywhere in the classification system.

Senator McGAURAN—So you do not take that into account.

Mr Clark—No, the X classification says:

... This classification category applies only to films. This classification is a special and legally restricted category which contains only sexually explicit material. That is material which contains real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity between consenting adults.

Senator McGAURAN—Aren’t you just playing with words? You have told us how you keep in touch with the community, and that is very good—and that, by the way, was a result of the movie Salo. It made many changes to the review board—although I despair that they are all unwinding now. The community, whom you are meant to refer to from time to time, know what pornographic means. They know the line, albeit that it is different for each person—there is a line and you know it when you see it.

Senator McGAURAN—I have not finished.

Mr Clark—I apologise.

Senator McGAURAN—It is my turn! I know you are just playing with words. You are hiding behind the fact that it is not classified, but in real life you have to take that into account, because every criticism that I have picked up—and critics are well known for their liberal views when reviewing films at the best of times—

Senator Ellison—If we could just get to the nub of the question.

CHAIR—We are very pressed for time, Senator McGauran.

Senator McGAURAN—In every critic’s review that I pick up, they use that term. You are trying to hide behind ‘sexually explicit’, but go out to the community and put those words to them and they would not know what you meant. Say ‘pornographic’ and they are with you. Every critic calls it pornographic or question whether or not it is. I have all the critics’ reviews here, from the Age and the Financial Review, claiming it is just pornographic and should not be exhibited. The Australian says it is pornographic—

CHAIR—Your actual question, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN—I have to give this a bit of a backdrop. The Herald-Sun asks is it not pornographic—

CHAIR—We are getting your drift. What is your actual question?

Senator McGAURAN—and there is a feature in the Age. So that is the term they use. If you want to stay in touch with the community, know what that word means and where that line is drawn. You use one term; the public identify with another, including the critics—and, may I add, the review board. The review board thought it was pornographic, ‘mildly pornographic’. But if it is pornographic it should not be shown. You use the term ‘sexually explicit’; we use ‘pornographic’.

Mr Clark—If I take the common word—and I agree with you, ‘porn’ is the more frequently used descriptor—you are perfectly right: yes, that is the case. I am not playing with words. They are the actual words that we have to use in coming to classification decisions. The board, if you like, formed a view that 9 Songs should be classified X because it contains sexually explicit material which, yes, the press are commonly referring to as porn. They are not using that word but the words that are here. They are not words to hide behind but words that they are required to have regard to. That is the classification system. The Classification Review Board looked at that and considered that the amount of sex in the film could be accommodated by an R rating. The reasons for their decision on 9 Songs are in their report. If they choose to use the word that is commonly used, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is not a word that appears in the classification system.

Senator McGAURAN—In short, you did not believe the movie was pornographic—

Mr Clark—I do not express personal views about this.

Senator McGAURAN—The board did not believe it was pornographic, yet they would not classify the movie. The review board thought it was pornographic, yet they classified the movie. What a muddle!

Mr Clark—If I apply the word ‘pornographic’ then obviously that is consistent with the board coming to an X decision. The reasons for the Classification Review Board’s decision are available. That is their justification for coming to a decision which shows the review board and the classification system working. A lot of people will disagree with that decision, but that is the decision that the review board have made. I would also add that there is a lot of material that is simulated sex which is classified R. It is not real but it is simulated sex, which is classified R—and that could also be described as pornographic.

Senator McGAURAN—You have to take into account, according to the classification, the prolonged nature of any offending scene or any scene at all. There are two questions here. The movie is a cheap 70 minutes long and 35 minutes of it, according to the critics, is sex. The real offending scene breaks a record, being the most prolonged of its kind. In the past you have always relied on a fleeting scene—you have used the word ‘fleeting’ quite often, or ‘not prolonged’, in any other reports you have on films. But here we have got a record: it is quite a long scene, with more than half the movie itself being one big sex scene.

What is the question? There has been no other movie with such a prolonged, intimate sex scene. Firstly, I am trying to establish that this movie is groundbreaking. And, secondly, where do you draw the line between ‘fleeting’ and ‘prolonged’, when half the movie—35 minutes—is taken up with it?

Mr Clark—The actual sex scenes in the film do not add up to 35 minutes. I believe that was a misreport in the press. There are two longer scenes of actual sex. There is a lot of what is, for all intents and purposes, simulated sex. There are two longer scenes of actual sex—one of approximately one minute and one of approximately two minutes—and several briefer depictions of actual sex identified in the review board’s reasons for its decision. It is not the 30 minutes described in the media, but there are those particular scenes that have been described. There is quite a lot of other simulated sexual activity but not detailed, explicit sexual activity.

Senator McGAURAN—But the true offending scene is not fleeting, is it? For the first time it is not.

Mr Clark—That would be the one of approximately one minute and one of approximately two minutes.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, in light of the circumstances in which the committee finds itself, is it possible for you to put your further questions on notice, as the minister suggested?

Senator McGAURAN—No, but I only have two more—

CHAIR—I see.

Senator McGAURAN—providing I do not get sidetracked. Thank you for your patience. Another criterion you have to take into account is the type of audience you expect to see this movie. That is what the review board took into account too, as they said. In rejecting this movie, from your level, what type of audience did you think would be seeing this movie?

Mr Clark—The film is restricted to adults over the age of 18. The film would probably have a limited appeal in terms of the broader community. I would not want to make a judgment about those members of the community who may or may not choose to see the film, but I think that the amount of time it has been on exhibition would indicate that not a vast number in the community have taken the opportunity to view the film.

Senator McGAURAN—You cannot speak for the review board, can you.

Mr Clark—No.

Senator McGAURAN—Would your board take into account where the movie is going to be shown—in which theatres?

Mr Clark—The board takes that into account in coming to a decision. In my board’s decision, it was X18+, which means it would not be shown in cinemas; it would only be available from the ACT and the Northern Territory.

Senator McGAURAN—The review board took that criterion into account too. The movie is showing in one place in Collins Street, which is pretty mainstream, and on Fitzroy Street, St Kilda—mainstream again.

Mr Clark—That reflects the fact that the film now has an R18+ rating and it is quite permissible for it to be shown in public exhibition cinemas. But, as I say, from the amount of time that the film has been on the screens, not a vast proportion of the Australian adult community has actually gone to see the film.

Senator McGAURAN—Other than that it is an R rated movie for adults over 18, if you take into account where it is showing—which theatres it is being shown in—it is being shown in mainstream theatres.

Mr Clark—That is correct. That is consistent with the rating.

Senator McGAURAN—Heaven knows what the review board was ever taking into account. If it is being shown in the mainstream theatres, they are taking nothing into account, other than the rating.

Mr Clark—The rating is consistent with the ratings in other jurisdictions around the world. The film has been shown in similar circumstances in many places.

Senator McGAURAN—Of course, for someone who does not represent the review board, you do a good job defending them. This is my last question. No, I have two more.

CHAIR—One.

Senator McGAURAN—All right—I will make it a big one.

CHAIR—How will I tell the difference?

Senator McGAURAN—Mr Clark, you released the movie Irreversible with the offending scene in it and you issued it on artistic merit.

Mr Clark—No.

Senator McGAURAN—You did not?

Mr Clark—That is one of many criteria the board applies, so it was not a decision made solely on artistic merit. That is one of the things the board must consider in coming to a decision every time it makes a decision.

Senator McGAURAN—I put it to you that it was the overriding one. It was mutually exclusive to all the others. I was establishing in my earlier questioning about the meaning and all those other factors. They were so black and white you had to overcome them with some esoteric or subjective judgment. That was artistic merit, which has now become the overriding factor in the classification system. However, with Nine Songs they are a lot clearer. They admit it is pornographic—they admit this and that and everything else I have been speaking about—but it has artistic merit, which overrides all the classifications. So aren’t you just cherry-picking now? There is no holistic look at the classification system. In fact, you may as well get rid of the detailed classification system because you are now just cherry-picking to the mutual exclusion of everything else, and artistic merit is coming to the forefront here. I also put it to you—and it is quite obvious—that you and the higher board run to this artistic merit excuse every time you are caught with your backs to the wall. It has become the catch-cry to diminish the existing classification. I put it to you that Reid v Director-General of Social Services, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 1981, states that in exercising the discretion under the relevant section of the act:

... the decision-maker must have regard to whether, by exercising the discretion in a particular case, he will be achieving or frustrating ends or objects which are conformable with the scope and purpose of the Social Services Act 1947 ...

The act specifies the code and classification—words such as ‘demeaning’, ‘exploitation’ et cetera.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran—

Senator McGAURAN—You do not take them into account; you take artistic merit into account.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, I am going to ask Mr Clark for a response and that will conclude his part of the examination.

Senator McGAURAN—Quite frankly, you would not hold up an Administrative Appeals Tribunal—

Senator Ellison—Madam Chair, we need the question, not the statement. If we can have the question, and if there are a series of them perhaps we can take them on notice—

CHAIR—And examine the Hansard and assess what the questions were.

Senator Ellison—and Mr Clark can have an opportunity to get back in detail to Senator McGauran.

CHAIR—Would the minister’s suggestion be satisfactory, Senator McGauran?

Mr Clark—I think the simple answer is no.

CHAIR—Mr Clark, would you assist the committee by examining the Hansard and extracting the questions from Senator McGauran’s statement and then responding to them?

Mr Clark—I will assist the committee—

CHAIR—Thank you very much. Senator McGauran, will the minister’s suggestion assist you? Thank you. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, we appreciate your assistance to the committee this evening.

[9.19 pm]

***

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 (along with Barnaby Joyce) questioning the following people.

Ms Olya Booyar - Acting Director Classification Board
Mr Roger Wilkins - Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department
Ms Philippa Lynch - First Assistant Secretary, Classification, Human Rights and Copyright Division

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 McGAURAN—I believe I am also across what Senator Joyce has brought up, so I will bring it to the attention of the minister at the table. The officers before us have had this complaint put before them on more than one occasion, and they have acted satisfactorily. They know exactly what Senator Joyce is raising and they know exactly what magazines he is referring to. This does not come out of the blue to them at all. They know there is a rort going on in convenience stores and all the major service station shops, including Shell and BP. They know that the category 1 classification is being abused to the hilt. You know it, you have had it brought to your attention, you duck, you weave, you slip, you slide.

Senator Wong —Who is the ‘you’ in that question?

Senator McGAURAN —Not you, Minister.

Senator Wong—Then I would like to make two points. First, you are making a whole range of imputations about the state of mind of the officers. You can disagree with a policy, you can disagree with classifications and you can disagree with action, but I think it is problematic to impute a state of mind. The second point I would make—and I am new to this area—is that these classification guidelines, as I have said previously, have been agreed between the Commonwealth and all jurisdictions. These guidelines, according to the document I have received, came into effect in May 2005—that is, under your government. So, if you have an issue, you should not simply be targeting the officers at the table.

Senator McGAURAN—It is not about classification; it is about enforcement. There is nothing wrong with the classification. The problem is with the enforcement and the abuse that is going on. It is your job to adhere to that classification.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, prior to your coming to this session, Ms Booyar and Ms Lynch informed this committee that enforcement is in fact the responsibility of the states and territories. Ms Lynch, could you restate that for the record.

Ms Lynch—The Commonwealth legislation sets out the system for classification of publications, movies, computer games et cetera. Enforcement of those provisions is set out in state law and is largely a matter for the state police. The board itself has no role in enforcement, other than through the community liaison service, which visits petrol stations, DVD shops and adult shops.

Senator McGAURAN—You are talking about enforcement but, if it is brought to their attention that the classification is being breached to the hilt, what is your job then?

Senator Wong —When you say ‘your’, who are you referring to? Are you asking the department?

Senator McGAURAN —I am asking the OFLC. Do we have the OFLC before us?

Senator Wong —Yes.

Ms Lynch —Senator McGauran, the OFLC no longer exists. We have the Classification Board and the review board.

Senator McGAURAN —What is the Classification Board’s job when it is brought to their attention?

Ms Booyar—When it is brought to our attention that the classification has been breached, we endeavour to purchase the magazine through the CLS. We have a look at it and we compare it to the original classification. If we are satisfied that the classification has been breached then we write to the distributor, asking him to show cause why the classification should not be revoked because of that and give him a number of days to respond. If he or she does not respond adequately then we revoke the classification.

Senator McGAURAN—Do not tell me your department is not an enforcement body, Ms Lynch. It is an enforcement body. It makes the judgements in regard to the classifications. It is an enforcement body; it makes the judgements.

Mr Wilkins—I think we are confusing two types of enforcement. We were talking, basically, about compliance with the classification. Once a matter is classified, the primary authorities that are in charge of making sure that classification is adhered to in the community are state and territory police. That is not their job, nor is it the job of the Attorney-General’s Department. So they are not in that sense a compliance agency. They are concerned to make sure that importers—people who are bringing publications into the country—in fact comply with the sorts of requirements, of putting them in the right plastic bags and putting the right signage on them, in terms of classification.

Senator McGAURAN —That is what I am asking.

Mr Wilkins —Yes, but the critical issue that you are concerned about—

Senator McGAURAN —No, the critical issue I am concerned about is why is category 1 being abused? That is their job.

Mr Wilkins —But you are concerned about why the publications are in the service stations or wherever.

Senator McGAURAN—I am concerned why category 1 is being abused—when clearly it is RC and not category 1—and they know it and they are not doing their job.

Mr Wilkins —The question of how it should be classified is a matter for the classification board, and they act on the basis of guidelines that have been agreed to by state and territory censorship ministers. If you want to change those, it is a matter for—

Senator McGAURAN —Don’t get cute, Mr Wilkins. This is quite simple. This is as simple as it can be.

Mr Wilkins —So what is the question?

Senator McGAURAN —I do not come to this committee very often, but I go to many, and there has never been one as cute and as evasive as this.

CHAIR —Order! Senator McGauran. I will ask you to withdraw that imputation about Mr Wilkins.

Senator McGAURAN —What imputation?

CHAIR—I think you made a comment about Mr Wilkins’s response being cute. We do not conduct ourselves this way in the committee. He is a very senior public servant, and I would ask you to withdraw that.

Senator BRANDIS—Point of order, Madam Chair. What Senator McGauran said is perfectly within the accepted parameters of robust exchanges. Might I remind you that many of your colleagues, some of whom now sit in the federal cabinet—notably, for example, Senator John Faulkner, who made a great name for himself at these estimates committees—would routinely, and without objection from coalition chairs, engage in exchanges with witnesses much, much more robust than anything we have just heard from Senator McGauran. I caution you about being so heavy-handed in the chair that you actually constrict the operation of the parliamentary process.

CHAIR—I hear your point of order, Senator Brandis, but I am conducting the proceedings of this committee the way I believe they need to be conducted, and I do not believe that that is in your best interests. Senator McGauran, you may disagree with what the officers at the table have to say, but I would ask that you address them appropriately if you want to continue.

Senator McGAURAN —I will attempt to address them appropriately, Madam Chair. We are going around in circles.

Senator Joyce has put the whole issue on the table before you now in estimates. You have had it in a series of quite well-balanced, legitimate and evidence based complaints. I am just going to tell you directly on Hansard that you are failing your job miserably, and you know you are. You are up to something. I will leave it at that.

Senator BARNETT —Mr Wilkins, I hope you are getting the sense that there is extreme concern shared by a number of senators on this side of the desk, on behalf of our constituents, in regard to how these matters are operating, and how they are being managed currently. It is not personal. Please do not take any of this personally. What we are doing is reflecting the concerns of our constituents.

Senator Wong—I am not sure that Senator McGauran’s saying, ‘You are up to something’ can be taken in any way other than personally, if you don’t mind me saying. I am not quite sure how one would not take that personally.

—He has expressed a whole range of views and concerns, and many of them are very strongly held. I know Senator McGauran is bona fide in his views and beliefs and that he holds them very firmly. I want to move to a specific example: Art Monthly. It was in the news, it is in the public arena, it has been drawn to your attention and it has been classified. Can you advise the committee, firstly, of the date when you were alerted to that document and, secondly, when you started the process to classify that magazine?

Ms Booyar —The director of the board wrote to the publisher on 8 July requiring the publisher to submit the July edition of Art Monthly for classification.

Senator BARNETT —When did you first become aware of the concerns regarding Art Monthly?

Ms Booyar —There were a number of media reports immediately prior to that, so it would have been in the days prior to that. It would have been around 6 or 7 July.

Senator BARNETT—So on the 6th or 7th of July you became aware of it and, as a result of that, you are advising the committee that the director of your board wrote to the publisher.

Ms Booyar —Yes, calling in the publication. Art Monthly usually would not be considered a submittable publication. But because the director had formed a reasonable view that it could be a submittable publication he is required to call it in for classification.

Senator BARNETT—Indeed. I think this is exactly one of the concerns that many senators and many constituents have: these publications are out there and they are unclassified until views are expressed of concern in the community, they come to the attention of your director and yourselves, and then you have called them in or you have written to them and said, ‘Please forward the publication.’

Ms Booyar —They are required to at that point. They cannot not submit them.

Senator McGAURAN —Senator Barnett, that is on one occasion. They are not as rigorous as they are making it sound to you.

***

2009: Unrated Porn Magazines

During May's Senate Estimates he again spoke against unrated porn magazines.

Here are some selected quotes.

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - 25/05/2009 - ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S PORTFOLIO -
Classification Review Board Classification Review Board
Do you know if you are making any progress in nailing these people who are allowing this filth to penetrate the public arena?

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - 26/05/2009 - ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S PORTFOLIO - Australian Federal Police
Yesterday we had evidence from the Classification Board regarding the proliferation of pornography and filth through our corner stores, petrol stations, small shops, milk bars and that sort of thing, and that this is happening with regular occurrence around Australia.
So what role does the AFP have, if any, in terms of combating this type of filth that is infiltrating the public arena in Australia?

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - 26/05/2009 - ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S PORTFOLIO
I am not sure whether you are aware of those discussions, but obviously it involved Customs to some degree and a good deal of concern was expressed about the pornography, filth and other offensive material being made available in petrol stations, general stores, 7/11s and the like all around Australia.

***

2010: The R18+ rating of SALO

In April 2010 the Classification Board again passed SALO with an R18+ rating. This was later confirmed by the Review Board. McGauran was outraged.

Senator Julian McGauran
Liberal Senator for Victoria
CLASSIFICATION BOARD FAILS COMMUNITY STANDARDS TEST
Friday, 16 April 2010

A call was made today for the Chairman of the Classification Board, Mr Donald McDonald to resign or be sacked from the Board following its decision to re-release the formerly banned movie Salo onto DVD.

Victorian Liberal Senator, Julian McGauran and long time campaigner against the movie said today Salo was first banned in Australia in 1975 but cleared for showing in 1993 and again banned in 1998. The movie depicts every form of sexual fetish against minors (children under 16 years). It shows graphic scenes of sexual torture, rape and murder.

“This movie is a paedophiles treat. It is a hand book for deviants and could trigger crazed minds,” Senator McGauran said.

“Our chief censors have just made the job of vice squads around the country harder.

“The lifting of the ban of Salo by the Classification Board is divorced from community standards and leaves no line in the sand in regard to our censorship laws.

“The Board can no longer be trusted to defend public standards.

“Mr McDonald must take responsibility as Chairman of the Board for the re-release of Salo. Any decent Chairman could not accept the release of this movie under any criteria.

“If Mr McDonald was in the minority on the Board who disapproved of Salo’s release then he ought to have courage of his convictions and resign in protest. It is a defining movie in regard to the boundaries of censorship in Australia”.

“Salo is not another pornographic movie with consenting adults but a movie that depicts children.

“The movie is an open and shut case of paedophilia and breaches every classification code”, Senator McGauran concluded.

Quoted from:
Minister seeks review of sadistic film's release
theaustralian.com.au, April 17, 2010

Liberal senator Julian McGauran requested a review through the Attorney-General's office. He has also called for the resignation of Classification Board director and Howard government appointee Donald McDonald, if he opposed the majority decision.

"If he didn't support this decision, he should step down in protest," Senator McGauran said. "This film meets absolutely no community standard. This is the most open and shut case ever. There is no context for pedophilia."

Senator Julian McGauran
Liberal Senator for Victoria
Classification Chair Called to Break His Silence
Tuesday, 20 April 2010

A call was made today for the Chairman of the Classification Board, Mr Donald McDonald to break his silence and make a full public explanation as to why the Board saw fit to release the controversial movie Salo.

Victorian Liberal Senator, Julian McGauran who previously called on Mr McDonald to resign or be sacked following the release of the movie in Australia onto DVD said Mr McDonald’s silence is an insult and an evasion of his public responsibilities.

“Mr McDonald must know the consequences and controversy that surrounds the release of this movie – yet he hides in his office,” Senator McGauran said.

“This is yet another senior figure in a government authority refusing to take responsibility for their actions.

“Mr McDonald cannot run from his responsibilities and must make a full explanation on the Salo release. It is not sufficient for the Chair to rely on a flimsy two-page report. The weight of this decision deserves an open and honest discussion with the public. Mr McDonald needs to give further explanation given the gravity and public concern for the movie.

“This is not just another movie - it is a defining moment in regard to the boundaries of censorship in Australia.

“This movie breaks every guideline concerning the use of minors in films. Page 13 of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games states media must be RC – Refused Classification when it includes the following content:

Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.

“The movie depicts every form of sexual fetish against minors (children under 16 years). It shows graphic scenes of sexual torture, rape and murder. Even the minority report of the Classification Board states the reason for opposing the release is due to it ‘involving minors throughout’.

“Salo is supporting the paedophile and deviant culture.

“The lifting of the ban is detached from community standards and leaves no line in the sand – sending our censorship laws into outer space,” Senator McGauran said.

Quoted from:
Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salo cleared for DVD release
theaustralian.com.au, May 6, 2010,

Liberal Senator Julian McGauran derided the decision and questioned whether Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor's request for a review after Salo was initially cleared was merely a “political stunt”.

“The Minister should now step in,” said Senator McGauran. “If he's bona fide, he should take the next step and step in, which he is able to do with the state attorneys general.”

Senator Julian McGauran
Liberal Senator for Victoria
Minister Must Override Movie Release
Thursday, 6 May 2010

A call was made today for the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Brendan O’Connor to override a decision by the Classification Review Board to release the formerly banned movie Salo onto DVD.

Minister O’Connor is responsible for both the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. The Minister had initially appealed against the decision of the Classification Board to release the controversial movie Salo. Yesterday the Review Board rejected the Minister’s case and upheld the decision to release the movie.

Victorian Liberal Senator Julian McGauran, a long time campaigner against the movie said the Minister must now step in and have the courage of his convictions. If he believed the movie was worth appealing he must believe the movie is worth stopping. The Minister has power with the State Attorneys to block the release of this vile movie.

“If the Minister does not act then his objection to the movie was a political stunt”, Senator McGauran said.

“The Minister will lack integrity if he does not act. He cannot have it both ways, object to the movie but allow it to be released.

“If Minister O’Connor sits on his hands and allows its release to go ahead then it can only be taken that this was his intention in the first place. Not to act will allow his Board appointments to be free to continue releasing movies that clearly depict paedophile activity and the worst cases of sexual violence.

“This movie is a paedophile’s treat. It is a hand book for deviants and could trigger crazed minds. The movie depicts every form of sexual fetish against minors (children under 16 years). It shows graphic scenes of sexual torture, rape and murder. Salo was first banned in Australia in 1975 but cleared for showing in 1993 and again banned in 1998.

“Our chief censors have trashed community standards. The release of Salo has removed any line in the sand for censorship in this country, it breaches every classification law.

“Unless the Minister makes a tough stand, our children are in for a roller coaster ride into the outer limits of morality”, Senator McGauran concluded.

Senator Julian McGauran
Liberal Senator for Victoria
Minister O'Connor Fails To Defend Community Standards
Tuesday, 18 May 2010

A claim was made today that the Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor’s failure to take action against the release of the movie Salo to DVD shows his placid acceptance of its release into the community.

Victorian Liberal Senator Julian McGauran said the Minister has failed to protect the most basic of community standards by not stopping this movie. The movie delves into explicit and degrading sexual behaviour against minors (under 16).

First banned in Australia in 1975, Salo has been denied classification on six occasions due to disturbingly strong depictions of torture, degradation, sexual violence and nudity including masturbation, forced sodomy and urolagnia, coprophagous, suicide, flesh mutilation including partial scalping and branding as well as paedophilia and bestiality.

“The release of the movie will redefine the definition and acceptance of paedophilia”, Senator McGauran said

“Salo is not another pornographic movie with consenting adults but a movie that depicts children. The movie is an open and shut case of paedophilia and breaches every classification code.

“The Minister is allowing a complete override of community standards and the trashing of the censorship laws of this country.

“It is no argument to say that he cannot act. The Minister has authority over the Classification and Review Boards and the classification standards. In essence he is the chief censor.

“The Minister must draw on the power of his office and Government along with rallying the State Attorney - Generals to stop the movies’ release”, Senator McGauran said.

“The release of the movie since its last rejection in 2008 clearly reflects the change in the majority of Board appointments in 2009, appointments made by Minister O’Connor and cleared by the Labor Cabinet. Not to act will allow his Board appointments to be free to continue releasing movies that clearly depict paedophilia activity and the worst cases of sexual violence.

“If the Minister does not act to ban the movie then he is placing our children on a roller coaster ride into the outer limits of morality”, Senator McGauran concluded.

2010: SALO in Senate Estimates

During October's Senate Estimates Julian McGauran questioned the Classification Board and the Review Board about the R18+ rating they awarded to SALO.

Here is a taste of his confrontational questioning. The full text can be found on our SALO page in the Film Censorship Database.

Title LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
24/05/2010
Database Estimates Committees
Date 24-05-2010
Source Senate
Department Attorney-General’s Department
Program Classification Board

Senator McGAURAN —It is in regard to the movie Salo. My colleague Guy Barnett will also follow up with questions. In your introduction you rightly made the point that it is a controversial movie. I give this as background to a question: it is a vile movie and the act of releasing it is a vile act. It was first banned in 1975 and as late as 2008 the ban was upheld. I quite understand the debate about censorship. It has a very wide spectrum between belief and interpretation, but there are two factors. This is my question: Do you agree that there are two factors which are agreed upon as a bedrock community standard? The first is that there is a line in the sand that we do have some form of censorship in this country and it is reflected in the Classification Code? That is the first point. The second point is that paedophilia is out. They are two bedrock community standards. Do you agree with that, Mr D McDonald?

Senator McGAURAN—I am asking you about the premise which the board itself would work off. Is it a bedrock community standard that first of all there is censorship in this country—there is a line to be drawn—and that it is reflected in the Classification Code? Secondly, that paedophilia in films or moves is out; there is no interpretation of it?

Senator McGAURAN —I will try again; I will rephrase it. Is paedophilia on film refused classification?

Senator McGAURAN—The context of this movie, as you would well be aware, deals with the sexual abuse, degradation, torture and humiliation of minors. Now, according to the Classification Code, a minor is under 18. But anyone who views this movie knows the implication of the children on the screen is definitely that they are between 13 and 16 at the max. But we only have to deal with under 18. That would be a viewer’s point of view. Just looking at it, you know it is minors. But, more than that, the minority of your board said the same and the majority of the review board said the same—that this movie deals with minors, people under age. Yet, in your own report, you did not even mention that the core objection to this movie, Salo, is that it deals with minors. It is not even in your report. Are you reading your own report now?

Senator McGAURAN—So you have grabbed onto that, have you? They say it deals with minors in the minority report. Why have you not gone to justifying that? This deals with under 18s—in fact, younger.

Senator McGAURAN—So we will establish that this movie deals with paedophilia. If the minority report is part of your main report and it states that it clearly deals with minors then this movie is all about the degradation, torture, humiliation and abuse of minors, or they are part of the movie. Yes or no?

Senator McGAURAN —Is that correct and does this movie deal with paedophilia?

Senator McGAURAN—It does. I am again in admiration of you. But it is again a slippery answer. The minority report is the objection to the majority in Mr McDonald’s report.

Senator McGAURAN —The objection is that it deals with minors. There is a certain number on his board that did not want that movie passed.

Senator McGAURAN—Correct, and in the majority side of the report, which justifies the release of this movie, they do not even mention—cowardly so—that this movie deals with minors in the worst form. Is that correct?

Senator McGAURAN—Under the Classification Act, it requires you to seek community opinion. It also says the board has to consider the standards of morality, decency and propriety when classifying Salo, which means you must use the community standards as a touchstone. That relates to my first question: how did you do that in relation to Salo?

Senator McGAURAN —What community opinion did you seek?

Senator McGAURAN —The act says that you are required to protect minors from harmful material; you are to seek standards, morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. It is referring to a community standard. You are saying that in regard to Salo, let alone other movies, there is no community touchstone in your decision making?

Senator McGAURAN —The code also says:

(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:

(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and

(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

It uses the phrase ‘community concerns’. What community investigation did you undertake? Was it all in-house; were you all breathing the same oxygen inside your own cinema? Every other board I know has used the community as a touchstone. I know this well because I go back to 1993 in relation to this issue. I know that the fundamental change to the board, at least when the coalition was in government, was to have community advisory boards. What happened to them?

Senator McGAURAN —You are incompetent. [To Donald McDonald]

Senator McGAURAN —I withdraw that comment.

Senator McGAURAN —I will give a few questions to Senator Barnett while I cool down.

Senator McGAURAN —Do not get smart, Mr McDonald.

Senator McGAURAN—I will say to the chair that I will be more respectful. You are right, Senator Wong, except to say that the reason I am so heated is that I have no respect—none at all. That is what is driving me, but I will try to control myself.

Senator McGAURAN —Asking the same question, what evidence did the review board have with the additional material on the making of Salo that people would watch it and therefore that the would mitigate the offences of the main movie?

Senator McGAURAN—In both your report and the report of the Classification Board, the sole reason that differed from any other occasion for the release of this movie was the second DVD in the packet, which would go into the making of Salo—behind the scenes, so-called. That is the sole fundamental difference. You have not really answered the question. What evidence is there that people will watch this? This is the first time that this has happened, isn’t it?

Senator McGAURAN —If you do not watch the second disc in the package of this movie, it is a paedophile’s treat. I think it is, anyway, given that it is worse to release it on home viewing, ironically, when you think of the fact that people at home have their own privacy, than it is in the arthouse cinemas, when it was first released and then rebanned in 1993. At least in the arthouse cinema you have someone at the door checking, and people have to pay for it. They cannot freeze-frame it as they can at home. They cannot relish it as they can at home. Children may well walk into the room or use the video themselves. So, in fact, you have spread the audience—you have expanded the audience—more than if you released it to arthouse cinemas. Did you take that into account?

Senator McGAURAN—In your report, the minority view, to its absolute credit, whoever the minority is on your board, lays out—in excruciating detail, I should add—exactly how young these people are. You have read the report, which states in absolute detail why they really are, to the viewer, probably aged 13 to 16, maximum. This is a movie about the degradation of children and minors. Both of you never considered the community standard, but did you at least consider, for example, the state laws in Victoria? There are child pornography laws on material that describes or depicts a person who is or appears to be a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context—section 67A of the Victorian Crimes Act. Did you consider any of that in regard to Salo?

Senator McGAURAN —This is how I understand it. You spent an unnecessary amount of time saying that the actors were not under 18 in your opinion and, as historically as you could get, were not under 18. That was at one point an accusation too. Then you go on to say that if they are under 18, not the actors but just the depiction of them, and blind Freddy can see they are—

Senator McGAURAN—Yes, the victims in the scene as depicted, not the actors themselves. You say it will be mitigated by the context of it all. So you are in fact admitting that on the screen they are taken to be under 18—under 16 really—but it is all mitigated by this extra DVD, ‘The making of Salo’. You are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by stating that the actors are not under 18.

Senator McGAURAN —Can we expect now that we can pick up this movie in Blockbuster or Video Ezy? Is that where it is headed?

Senator McGAURAN —Is there anything to prevent it from going to Video Ezy or Blockbuster? Is it general release?

Senator McGAURAN—But you should know, when you release a movie or classify a movie, where it is going and to what audience. In fact, not only do I say that as general moral principle but it is in the act. You have to know where it is going and who it is affecting. The act requires you to know that.

Senator McGAURAN—But why have you avoided the fundamental question which, as you would well know, would pull down the whole classification of this movie—that is, the age, as depicted, of those on screen? Why, in your own report, have you avoided that?

Senator McGAURAN—The minority addressed it very well, including the minority on Mr McDonald’s board. They say clearly it is. This is the key. You have both skipped around it, as if you wanted to see the movie up and running and out in Blockbuster.

Senator McGAURAN—Thank you for constantly checking me, because I am passionate about it and I will try and get through the list of questions. Not to correct you or anything, but for the record: this movie was rebanned under the Howard government. The classification laws were tightened under the Howard government because of this movie. It was released in 1993 and rebanned in 1998. The classification laws were tightened, the board was reshaped and the movie was banned. This is an icon. I am not just being some sort of—

Senator McGAURAN—No. I will tell you where the changes came in. In 2008 this movie was refused classification yet again. In 2009 half the board—half of both the review board and the Classification Board—were turned over and reappointed by the minister and the cabinet. I think that says it all.

Senator McGAURAN—Yes, basically I am. They have reinterpreted the laws. In fact, they have not even reinterpreted them; they have just walked over the top of them. It is so blatant. I could excruciatingly go through each point of the grounds for refusing classification, and Salo would match every single one of them. You have not even acknowledged that. You found this new concept called ‘context’ in the making of Salo, put it in the DVD cover and pushed it out. One of the reasons you gave—I will not say it is a reason why you released it, but it was part of your report—was the age of the movie. It was first filmed in 1975 and was never released. Where is the statute of limitations on paedophilia, on rape or on torture? The fact that it was filmed in 1975 does not make it any more correct. Mr McDonald, where is the statute of limitations?

Senator McGAURAN—No. The issue is that, in your report, you mention that the age of the movie was a mitigating factor against the horror and the degradation. I am saying to you that in the movie there is degradation, rape and so on. I will not go through each point, but what does age have to do with it, just because it was filmed in 1975?

Senator McGAURAN—I beg to differ, and I have police expertise to back up my statement from many years ago—and currently too. When it was first released in 1993, it was described rightly by a Victorian police profiler as a handbook for the Mr Cruels of this world. This is not an artistic movie. Is that what you are trying to sell it as—some sort of art piece?

Senator McGAURAN—That is the implication I take. But anyway, you said it is not real paedophilia. Of course it is not; it is implied and it is depicted to be so. Again, coming back to the classification and the law, if it is implied, that is a ground for refusal of classification. It only has to be implied or acted or depicted. Of course you will never get actual paedophilia: that is a ridiculous statement to make.

What was the other thing I was going to mention? Again, you have rewritten the rules and just walked over the top of them. When you classify movies—and this has always been the case—you classify scenes. Some scenes stay in and some scenes stay out. If you pull out a scene or two, an R becomes an MA and an MA becomes an M. That is how movies are usually classified—according to the scenes. Therefore, every one of these scenes—but enough of them—warrants an RC classification. You are talking about the context of the whole movie. You are trying to sell us the whole movie along with the second DVD. You call that all ‘in context’. But you have a responsibility to classify as much as that, scene by scene, don’t you?

Senator McGAURAN—But you do classify having regard to the impact of classifiable elements or scenes. You do classify according to the scenes and the impact of certain scenes?

Senator McGAURAN —Would you say that within Salo there are certain scenes with a high degree of impact?

Senator McGAURAN—No, it is an R-rated movie if there is high impact. Did I say very high impact? If it has very high impact it is rated RC. If it has high impact it is rated R. Are there very high-impact scenes?

Senator McGAURAN —High impact? It was not very high? There were no very high scenes within that movie?

Senator McGAURAN—No very high-impact scenes? You are going to force me to describe every scene. We do not have the time. There are very high-impact scenes. I will probably be asked to withdraw this but for you to say that there are no very high-impact scenes in that movie is a disgrace.

Senator McGAURAN —I am still reeling, even after the break, from your comments, Mr D McDonald, that Salo is a movie that does not have high-impact scenes. I am compelled, actually, to mention such scenes. The refused classification—

Senator McGAURAN—For this movie or any movie to be refused classification, let us go to the violent scenes. I regret that I have to do this, but this is the gravity of the release of this movie. I will ask two questions, one relating to its violence and the other relating to its fetishes. The classification system says this about RC:

… gratuitous, exploitive or offensive depictions of:

(e) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed…

But the key there is ‘very high degree of impact’. In your own report you say: ‘At 110 minutes a young man has his penis explicitly burnt with a candle. Another young man has his tongue explicitly sliced. At 111 minutes a young man’s eye is explicitly gouged out with a short blade. At 113 minutes, a young woman is explicitly scalped, with blood and gore depicted.’ The word ‘explicit’ in your own report would have to confirm ‘very high degree of impact violence’, would it not?

Senator McGAURAN —That was with regard to violence. The refused classification category says about sex:

… gratuitous, exploitive or offensive depictions of:

(h) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent.

In your own report, in regard to fetishes, at the 65-minute mark it relates to—I cannot even read it out, but I am sure you know what it relates to. It may have to be read out to make the point publicly: ‘At the 65-minute mark, obscured by a table, a male squats and implicitly defecates what appear to be faeces. The male hands a nude young female a spoon. He tells her to eat it. She retches and cries.’ It goes on, but I will leave it at that. Would that not then fall into the refused classification category of activity accompanied by fetishes offensive and abhorrent?

Senator McGAURAN—Correct. But the classification code does not define the difference between ‘actual’ and ‘acting’. It just says if it is at all implied. That is what you must be guided by. I do not think that is any ‘out clause’ at all.

Senator McGAURAN—I could ask the review board the same questions that I just asked Mr McDonald. In fact, I will to get that on the record. Do you want me to repeat them or do you recall them? The first one is in regard to the violence, which is very high impact. I described several screens that were explicitly very high impact.

Senator McGAURAN —That is absolute rubbish. You are here to answer questions, fair or not fair. You are paid to do a job and we are paid to ask you questions here.

Senator McGAURAN —If you do not answer them then I would consider that a breach.

Senator McGAURAN —You are threatening me, are you? You are a real smart alec.

Senator McGAURAN —Minister, pull him into line.

Senator McGAURAN —You do not have to defend him.

Senator McGAURAN—I will finish on this point. In relation to your nonanswer, it is obvious now that you cannot answer about the details of the movie, scene by scene. You have become a coward on this issue.

Senator McGAURAN —It is a personal movie.

Senator McGAURAN —I withdraw the reflection and I have finished my questioning,

2010: R18+ rated to the Federal Court

Julian McGauran MP
Media Release
June 15, 2010

Salo To Be Taken To The Federal Court

A coalition of community groups and public representatives have today appealed to the Federal Court against the release of the movie Salo.

Victorian Liberal Senator for Victoria Julian McGauran said the Rudd Government has failed to protect the most basic of community standards by not stopping this movie. The movie delves into explicit, degrading and violent sexual behaviour against minors (under 16 years of age).

The joint objectors to the Federal Court are:

- FamilyVoice Australia
- Senator Julian McGauran
- Senator Guy Barnett
- The Australian Christian Lobby

The group of objectors will argue that the Classification Board and Review Board have transgressed process and law.

“The Rudd Government’s failure to object to this movie has allowed our censorship laws to be trashed and is allowing paedophilia and sexual violence to become acceptable on our screens,” Senator McGauran said.

“Our chief censors, by releasing this movie, have redefined paedophilia and its acceptance.

“The movie classification has been rejected on six occasions, the last in 2008. Salo’s 2010 release clearly reflects the change in the majority of Board appointments in 2009, appointments made by Minister O’Connor and cleared by the Labor Cabinet.

“The movie shows disturbingly strong depictions of torture, degradation, sexual violence, mutilation, including a live rat being forced into a girl’s vagina.

“If the horrors of this movie have not motivated the Government to act to the fullest then it can only be judged as an endorsement of the movie’s release,” Senator McGauran concluded.

Andrew McIntosh

Vic State
Member of the Legislative Assembly
Liberal Party
Electorate: Kew

2004: Called for HITMAN: CONTRACTS to be banned

The Victorian Shadow Attorney-General Andrew McIntosh (who claims not to believe in censorship) called for the game HITMAN: CONTRACTS to be banned.

Quoted from:
Demand to ban thrill-kill game. Melbourne Herald-Sun 19.07.04

"This is a matter where you would think the Premier would stand up and call for a voluntary ban,"
"It is up to large corporations like Blockbuster and anybody else who is hoping to distribute this game to show some sort of responsibility.
"If you glorify a highly illegal activity in an environment of 27 gangland killings, where do you draw the line?"

Bruce Mildenhall

Vic State
Member of the Legislative Assembely
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Footscray

2005: Spoke against the X18+ rating

Ridiculed a petition calling for the legalisation of X18+ in Victoria.

Title: CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL

House: Assembly
Activity: Second Reading
Members: Mildenhall
Date: 23 March 2005
Page: 47

Second reading

Debate resumed.

I note that in an article that appeared in the Herald Sun of 2 December last year Mr Atkinson, a member for Koonung Province in another place, has proposed that X-rated videos, films and publications which are not permitted to be sold in Victoria and other states should be able to be put on sale in Victoria. He was quoted as saying that he was willing to introduce a private member's bill to pressure the government to change the law.

Again, picking up a theme from question time, this is an extraordinary policy proposition that has been put as an alternative to current government and indeed national approaches to the distribution of this material -- a very controversial proposal. I am sure the house will be very interested to hear whether Liberal Party speakers on this matter agree with Mr Atkinson that X-rated videos ought to be widely sold in Victoria as a matter of course, and that the government should allow such practice. I am sure the Victorian community would be interested in the Liberal Party's views on this matter and as to whether the views of Mr Atkinson are in fact those of the opposition, because this is particularly germane to this legislation. What we are talking about here is a national approach to these matters, a community consensus across the nation about these matters; but it seems that the Liberal Party, or parts of it, would seek to break that national consensus and enable this material to be widely available. Does the Liberal Party as a whole agree with that? What is the attitude to Mr Atkinson's private members bill? I am sure the community will be very interested to know that. But in the meantime the government will proceed with this very sound -- it is complex but sound -- and stable legislation.

***

The above was in response to this petition presented in December 2004 by Bruce Atkinson (Liberal Party).

Title: Classification guidelines: films
House: Council
Activity: Petition
Members: Atkinson
Date: 1 December 2004
Page: 1607

Classification guidelines: films

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) presented petition from certain citizens of Victoria requesting that the Legislative Council amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 to allow adult films classified X to be sold from restricted premises in Victoria (4788 signatures).

Quite why Bruce Mildenhall considers this proposal to be:

"...... an extraordinary policy proposition that has been put as an alternative to current government and indeed national approaches to the distribution of this material -- a very controversial proposal."

It seems that this is a very sensible idea. It is perfectly legal for Victorians to purchase X18+ rated films by mail order from the ACT or NT, yet it is illegal to purchase them in the State. This has not prevented unclassified hardcore films being widely available for sale/rent in the Victoria. Compare this with the ACT where it is near impossible to find an Adult film that has not been rated by the OFLC.

Michael Mischin

WA State
Liberal Party

Michael Mischin was one of thirteen West Australian politicians who put their name to a submission to the 2010 R18+ computer game review.

See our entry for Michael Sutherland for the full text of the submission, in which they argue against the introduction of a higher rating.

Scott Morrison

NSW Federal
Member of the House of Reps
Liberal Party
Electorate: Cook

Has become something of a strident anti-porn campaigner.

Here is is on Labor's planned watering down of the Howard Government's racist NT aboriginal intervention laws.

Speeches Northern Territory Intervention
Thursday 20th March 2008

....in this bill we learn that, in the case of cable television, communities will not be protected from pornography as of right. We learn that under this bill the provisions for cable porn have been watered down. They have been compromised. Under the government’s proposals, the community must now agree to accept these restrictions before they can be imposed. In other words, this government is happy to legislate a veto power to give Indigenous communities access to porn whenever they want it, and it has the front to pitch this to the Australian community as cracking down—the next step—and as protecting children. It may be the government’s next step, but it is not a forward step in the way that it is currently drafted. This government has come to this place demanding the right for Indigenous communities to have access to pornography. That is what the bill is doing. However the government may seek to dress it up, that is what the government is doing.

We strongly support and encourage measures that enable pay television pornography to be restricted in Indigenous communities. It is the next step. It is the unfinished business that must be undertaken. But, in the same action, by changing the process for defining how a community is to be protected, to make such protection discretionary is a seriously retrograde step, a classic case of one step forward and three steps back.

This bill sets out criteria by which an Indigenous community’s right to porn can be upheld. It says the minister must have regard to the wellbeing of people living in the area—as if access to pornography could actually add to that wellbeing. The minister must have regard to whether there is reason to believe people in the area have expressed concerns about being victims of violence or sexual abuse in the past 12 months or expressed concerns about the risk—placing the onus of proof on the abused and the vulnerable. The minister must have regard to whether there is reason to believe that children living in the area have seen R18 programs during the past 12 months—giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want the porn, rather than the children who may become exposed to that porn. And the minister must have regard to the extent to which people, in particular, women and children living in the area, have, during the past 12 months, expressed the view that wellbeing will be improved if R18+ programs are not provided—again, placing the onus on the abused to speak out to state the obvious about why they should be protected.

The simple question must be asked: why should such considerations and questions even be necessary? On what possible basis can the government walk into this place, parading as moral crusaders for Aboriginal people, and make a case for such issues to be considered? Why are the government seeking to provide a backstop measure to keep pornography in Aboriginal communities? Furthermore, why are they making it harder for those most vulnerable to the impacts of this evil trade, the women and children who suffer at the hands of abusers, who have also become victims of this insidious material—to keep the porn in Indigenous communities?

Within weeks we have a bill reopening the door for pornography to be let back into Indigenous communities. Increasingly, the studies reveal the link between pornography and abusive sexual behaviour, reinforcing rape myths and desensitising human responses to aggressive sexual behaviour. But, seriously, do we need the research to state what is obvious? I make these comments not to judge, not to moralise, but simply to warn. Pornography is a seductive and evil influence on our community, not just in Indigenous communities. None of us are immune from its ability to entice and negatively affect the health of our own sexuality. It has been a scourge on the lives of millions of human beings the world over, particularly men. It has destroyed lives, marriages and families. It has exploited our daughters, our sisters and our mothers. It is the enemy of our community. This may be a permissive and free society, but such freedoms are no substitute for virtues that underpin healthy families and strong communities—virtues that should be equally protected in this place.

There should be a blanket ban on pornography in these communities in relation to pay TV—no ifs, no buts. There should be a total prohibition on the transport of such material through prescribed areas—no compromises. There must be a guarantee that the consultation measures outlined in this bill are not a precursor to a further watering down of measures relating to other forms of pornography prohibited in the original bill.

***

Media Release Editorial:
Rudd goes to water over child sex abuse

Thursday 24th April 2008

At the last federal election we heard a lot about Labor’s ‘your rights at work campaign’. In fact you can’t travel too far around Sydney without one of their big orange signs still lunging at you from the road side. [Note to Mr Rudd, can we please have our telegraph polls back?]

One thing we did not hear much about was Mr Rudd’s commitment for remote indigenous communities to have their right to ‘pay TV’ porn protected by a new Labor Government.

In March, Labor introduced a new law to ‘ban’ pay TV pornography in indigenous communities. The Government talked up their new laws as ‘cracking down on the exposure of R-rated material to children’, in response to the little children are sacred report. Remember, this is the report where sexual abuse of Aboriginal children was found in every one of the 45 Northern Territory communities surveyed.

However, the devil of Labor’s new law is in the detail. Under their new laws, each indigenous community must now be ‘consulted’ and agree to accept the ban before they can be imposed – the ban you have when you’re not having a ban. Under the Howard’s Government’s approach a blanket ban was imposed on all other pornography. The next step was to do the same with pay TV.

Instead of carrying on John Howard’s tough stand on these issues, Kevin Rudd has gone to water. Kevin Rudd’s proposed law protects the rights of indigenous communities to continue to get their pay TV porn whenever they want it. Even Mark Latham would have thought this was Captain Wacky.

We are talking about pornography that is contributing to abusive criminal behaviour, and Mr Rudd and the government want to have a chat!

We are living in a post-apology world. We must now deal with the cold reality of the present and the fragility of the future faced by women and children in Indigenous communities.

Women and children living in indigenous communities should not have to make their case for porn to be banned from their communities; they should receive that protection by right. By speaking up we all know they risk further abuse. This Parliament must be the voice of the voiceless.

Mr Rudd‘s new porn laws for indigenous communities do not honour the little children are sacred report. Nor are they the next ‘bold step’ in the Northern Territory intervention. Labor have gone soft on the trafficking of pornography and are quietly watering down the Northern Territory intervention, while publicly pretending to be its champion.

If Labor are truly serious about closing the gap, then they must adopt the changes recommended by the Opposition. There should be a blanket ban on pay TV pornography and there should be a total prohibition on the transport of such material through these areas.

By contrast if Mr Rudd’s plan for the Northern Territory intervention is to now provide serial rights of veto on these important measures, then I despair for the welfare of those Australians living in these communities.

***

Here he is in an article written for The Punch regarding a five year old being exposed to porn.

Quoted form:
Protect kids from porn in the family home
The Punch
14.09.09

If adults and parents wish to expose themselves to this material, that is their business, it’s a free country. They every right to make their choices and live with the consequences of those choices. But even those who would defend an adult’s right to porn would surely not oppose any restriction or sanction on parents who knowingly or negligently exposed their children to this abuse.

We have laws in this country that protect our children from the dangers of guns in the home. They must be locked in a secure box made of hard wood or steel , with locks of solid metal. Ammunition must be stored in a locked and separate container. Failure to meet these requirements attracts a jail sentence.

If we can protect our children from guns, then we should also be aware of the loaded gun that is lying around in the homes of thousands of Australians on computers, on coffee tables, in bathrooms, in bookcases within easy reach and access of their child, who will suffer the consequences of their exposure to pornography for years to come, potentially for the rest of their lives.

Some may consider my warning alarmist, but if we are serious about protecting our children, we must do all we can to protect them from porn, and do it now.

Following a stream of critical comments he decided to clarify what he wanted.

Scott Morrison MP says:
09:55am | 14/09/09
Based on comments to date, perhaps I’m being too subtle. This is what I’m proposing, close the loop hole in the law to make it an offence for parents to knowingly or negligently expose their children to porn in the home! I am targeting bad parenting, not censorship. If you want to support parents showing their kids porn, then leave the laws as they are. I disagree, There’s no conspiracy here, if you want to look at this stuff, that’s your business. But as a society we shouldn’t say it"s OK to show it to your kids.

Helen Morton

WA State
Liberal Party

Helen Morton was one of thirteen West Australian politicians who put their name to a submission to the 2010 R18+ computer game review.

See our entry for Michael Sutherland for the full text of the submission, in which they argue against the introduction of a higher rating.

Gordon Moyes

NSW State
Member of the Legislative Council
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

In May 2005 he voted against Peter Breen's CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL that would have seen X18+ legalised in NSW.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL
Page: 15648

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 March 2005.

Given the nature of the debate and my position as a Christian leader in the community with a charge to represent the Christian voice of this State, I cannot leave this debate without putting on the record arguments against the sale and use of X18+ rated and other unclassified material. Many are familiar with the arguments against the sale and use of such material. In processing my arguments, however, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the findings of the United States Attorney General's Commission on Pornography.

The commission was set up in the 1980s to review the available empirical evidence on the relationship between exposure to pornographic material and antisocial behaviour. The commission concluded that there is a causal relationship between the exposure to many forms of pornography and several antisocial effects, including increased levels of violence against women. As a result of these findings, the commission called for a more strict enforcement of existing obscenity laws. In the same vein we would also call for a more strict enforcement of the current pornographic laws.

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard
8 March 2006
Subjects: Education; Films; Censorship
Speakers: Moyes Reverend The Hon Dr Gordon; Hatzistergos The Hon John
Speech Type: QWN; Questions Without Notice
Commentary: Answered on 2 May 2006 by John Hatzistergos

PRIMARY SCHOOLS M15+ FILMS PRESENTATION
Page: 21186

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of conflicting policies on the presentation of M15+ films to primary school students? In particular, is the Minister aware that the latest excursion policy released in 2004 allows for M15+ films to be shown to primary school students while a more detailed memorandum to principals, entitled "Use of Videos in Schools", that currently remains in force, expressly forbids showing M15+ films to under-age children? Is the Minister aware that the conflicting policies have created much angst and some confusion between parents and principals? What is the correct policy on showing M15+ films to primary schoolchildren, most of them under 11 years of age, when the law says they must be restricted to people over the age of 15 years? What will the Minister do to correct the discrepancy?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The last time I visited this issue was when I was Minister for Justice and looking into what ratings we gave prisoners in respect of the videos they saw in prison. I cannot say that I am familiar with the school policy, but I will take the question on notice and obtain an answer from the Minister for Education and Training.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard (Proof)
Extract from Transcript of Hansard 02/05/2006 (Article No.40)

PRIMARY SCHOOLS M15+ FILMS PRESENTATION Page: 29

On 8 March 2006 Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice regarding primary schools M15+ film presentations. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

Since the Use of Video in Schools Memorandum was issued in 1998, the Office of Film and Literature Classification has changed its classifications. However, the meaning of the classification markings has not changed. The correspondence is still there with the G, PG and M ratings but the MA and R are reinforced as legally restricted with the MA15+ and R18+ additions to the codes.

The Memorandum to Principals, Use of Videos in Schools is the current policy document in relation to the viewing of films, including videos and DVDs.

The Memorandum to Principals, Use of Videos in Schools states explicitly that films classified as M or MA (MA15+) should only be provided for students who are 15 years and over and parents should be informed in writing before a video rated M or MA (MA15+) is shown and provided with the opportunity to withdraw their child from the viewing.

Material rated R (R18+) is not to be shown to students in schools under any circumstances.

The Excursion Policy (2004) relates to all educational excursions and includes a section 6.1.2 Film Screenings and Live Performances. This section states explicitly that students should not attend R18+ (R) classifications and that the MA15+ (MA) classification is legally restricted.

This section also states that parents and caregivers must be informed of the classification of the film or live performance to be viewed as part of the excursion and provided with the opportunity to withdraw their child.

The Excursion Policy (2004) does not explicitly refer to an M rated live performance or film screenings but this document should be read in conjunction with the policy referred to in the Memorandum to Principals, Use of Video in Schools because the Excursion Policy does not supersede the policy contained in the memorandum.

No primary age students should be shown films or live screenings that are rated M or MA15+ (MA).

John Murray

NSW Federal
Member of the House of Reps
Labor Party
Electorate: Lowe

Pushes the Religious Right agenda whenever possible.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING: Office of Film and Literature Classification

Date: 12 May, 2005
Database: House Hansard
Questioner: Murphy, John, MP (Lowe, ALP, Opposition)
Responder: Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP)
Page: 125
Question no: 904
Type : Question
Main Committee: No
Proof: Yes
Source: House
Context: Questions in Writing

Mr Murphy (Lowe) asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 March 2005:

(1) Who are the members of the Classification Board in the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC).

(2) Who are the members of the Classification Review Board of the OFLC.

(3) Can he explain how these persons are representative of a cross section of Australian Society; if not, why not.

(4) What is the relationship between the 2003 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games and the Classification Code.

(5) How has he ensured that the intent of the legislation providing for the classification of film and literature (ie. That the Classification Board’s and the Classification Review Board’s decisions reflect contemporary Australian community standards) is reflected in the Boards’ decisions.

(6) Can a member of the public initiate a review of a classification decision if they feel that it does not reflect contemporary community standards, if not, why not.

***

Date: 09 August, 2005
Database: House Hansard
Questioner: Murphy, John, MP (Lowe, ALP, Opposition) Responder: Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP)
Page: 82
Proof: Yes
Question_no: 1403
Source: House
Type: Question
Context: Questions in Writing
Main Committee: No

Question Mr Murphy (Lowe) asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 23 May 2005:

(1) Can he confirm that the Classification Review Board has reviewed the decision of the Classification Board in respect of the film 9 Songs from X18+ to R18+, permitting explicit sex scenes to be viewed in mainstream theatres throughout Australia, as reported in the article titled ‘Uncomfortable position’ in The Australian on 4 May 2005; if so, can he explain the basis of this classification decision.

(2) Does the classification of 9 Songs as R18+ conform to the standards for the R18+ classification in the (a) Classification Code and (b) Classification Guidelines.

(3) Do all films depicting explicit sex scenes subject to assessment by the Office of Film and Literature Classification now fall within the R18+ category.

(4) What action will he take to prevent explicit sex scenes being screened in mainstream theatres.

(5) What is the current composition of the Classification Review Board.

(6) What is the statutory number of positions permitted on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board.

(7) Are churches, young Australians, elderly Australians and other persons represented on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board.

(8) What is the background of each of the eight members of the Classification Board and in which industries have they worked.

(9) Will he take action to broaden the representation on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board so that churches, consumer groups, the young, older Australians and other persons other than those currently on the board, are represented; if so, what; if not; why not.

***

2004-2005-2006
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOTICE PAPER
(www.aph.gov.au/house/info/notpaper)
No. 90
TUESDAY, 28 MARCH 2006
The House meets at 2 p.m.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING
28 March 2006

*3255 MR MURPHY: To ask the Attorney-General—

(1) Is he aware of reports that SBS is planning to broadcast an edition of South Park which depicts the Blessed Virgin Mary, a person held Sacred and Venerable to the vast majority of Christian adherents, menstruating before His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

(2) Has he read the article in Volume 4307 of the Catholic Weekly on 26 March 2006 titled ‘Ridicule sparks call for blasphemy law review’ in which it is reported that soul music veteran, Isaac Hayes, the voice of the character Chef on the satiric TV cartoon, South Park, has recently left the show citing its inappropriate ridicule of religion, and in particular, Christianity.

(3) Has the Office of Film and Literature Classification classified the episode of South Park; if so, what classification did it receive; if not, when will it be classified.

(4) Will he act to ensure that the episode of South Park is not broadcast and is refused classification on the grounds that such depictions are highly offensive to a significant proportion of Australians; if so, when; if not, why not.

Continue...

Julian McGaurin

1993: SALO'S R18+

1994: The OFLC's computer

1994: SALO's R18+

1997: SALO at the Review Board

2000: Standards at the OFLC

2005: IRREVERSIBLE'S R18+

2008: Porn Magazines in Petrol Stations

2009: Unrated Porn Magazines

2010: The R18+ rating of SALO

2010: SALO in Senate Estimates

2010: R18+ rated to the Federal Court

Andrew McIntosh

2004: Called for HITMAN: CONTRACTS to be banned

Bruce Mildenhall

2005: Spoke against the X18+ rating

Michael Mischin

Scott Morrison

Helen Morton

Gordon Moyes

John Murray

www.refused-classification.com

| Online Since April 2002