Brendan Nelson
NSW Federal
Member of the House of Reps
Liberal Party
Electorate: Bradfiled
Some quotes on the May 2008 Bill Henson controversy.
Quoted from:
Naked child photos 'violate Aussie values'
Herald Sun
23.07.08
"I think it violates all of the fundamental
values for which we stand,'' Dr Nelson said in Sydney.
"We need to send very strong signals to young people that we belive in them, we believe in the inherent dignity of young people that are growing up and the protection of their rights and values.
"This photographic exhibition, from what I have seen and what I have been advised, violates the things for which we stand as Australians and indeed as parents.''
***
Made the following comments during the controversy over the July 2008 edition of the Art Monthly Australia magazine which featured nude pictures of Olympia Nelson.
Brendan Nelson Doorstop Interview
Mon, 7th July 2008
Subject: Art Monthly
DR NELSON: If I could just say one other thing in relation to the Art Monthly photographs. The use and sexualisation of children in this way is indefensible whether in the name of art, parental consent or political protest. It is absolutely essential that we stand up to this. What these people have done in this publication and using the photographs of this child in this way is send a two-fingered salute to the rest of society. I will be asking the police authorities to investigate whether there is any breach of the law as it stands by the publication of these photographs. It's also obvious that there needs to be a review of the national classifications systems. There are many ways in which children have been used by earlier generations which we would not seek to defend today. And while in the arts we pass the soul from one generation to the next, shaping our values and our beliefs, the use of children in this way should no longer continue. And whilst it is very hard to define explicitly where it is appropriate or not appropriate to use children in this way, I think most Australian's would accept this is not appropriate and that the child concerned defends the photographs, in my view, merely compounds what has happened.
QUESTION: Dr Nelson, don't the children's parents' views in this case count for anything?
DR NELSON: Obviously parental consent and parental views are important. But once consent for the use of a child in this way has been given, it can never be taken back. And it is now time for our society to stand up and say that this is not appropriate. If you were sitting on a bus and the person next to you turned on their laptop and this was the screen saver, you would be very concerned.
QUESTION: What about pictures of children abroad, where you see pictures all the time of naked children, abroad, should they be banned?
DR NELSON: Michelle, that children can be used and are used in this way and in worse ways in other parts of the world is no excuse for Australia to not take a lead in terms of shaping the values that we think are important in the protection and nurturing of children. I mean this, as I've said before, this is one of the critical measures of a caring society and whilst, whatever the motives of parents are, whatever consent or otherwise has been given, this is wrong. We need to say it is wrong, we need to be prepared to stand up and say that it is wrong. And, as I say, the use of children in this way is indefensible, whether in the name of art, parental consent or political protest. And it's interesting that this debate occurs in the context of there being a searing debate in Australia about child protection, a Northern Territory intervention that was motivated by the shame of the sexual exploitation of children in the Northern Territory, and also where there's been quite a deep debate and division in Australia about bringing a paedophile to justice.
QUESTION: So, do you think these things really are related?
DR NELSON: Well, I think...
QUESTION:
Do you think, just taking the child protection issue, do you think that there is any possible relationship between children, small children photographed without clothes and abuse of children as we've seen in the recent cases in the last month or so?
DR NELSON: Michelle, this is an extraordinarily complex issue. It is not one that can be clearly distilled down to there being a direct relationship between one particular event, or one particular issue, or one particular dimension of it. Our society is grappling with a whole variety of complex issues involving children, from sexual abuse to neglect, through to the inappropriate use of them in so-called 'artistic' ways. I think it is now time for us, we've been deliberately... These people with Art Monthly have sought to deliberately provoke, if not send a two fingered salute to the rest of the country about the controversies surrounding Bill Henson's photography. I think it is time for us to take a stand. I am not by nature a wowser or anything of the sort. Seen a bit throughout my life in terms of the inappropriate behaviour of adults in relation to children. But I think that, whilst those who support the publication of these images in this form may be well intentioned in what they are doing, they know not what they do when others use these images in quite inappropriate, if not worse ways.
Quoted from:
Nelson to go to police over nude photo
Herald Sun
07.07.08
FEDERAL Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says he will ask police to investigate whether an art magazine broke the law when it used a photograph of a naked six-year-old girl on its cover.
Using the photograph sent a "two-fingered salute" to the rest of Australia, Dr Nelson said today.
But Dr Nelson said the editors did not understand the way the images could be used by pedophiles.
"The use and sexualisation of children in this way is indefensible, whether in the name of art, parental consent or political protest," he said.
"It is absolutely essential that we stand up to this. What these people have done in this publication and using the photographs of this child in this way is send a two-fingered salute to the rest of society.
"I will be asking the police authorities to investigate whether there is any breach of the law as it stands by publication of these photographs.
"It's also obvious that there needs to be a review of the national classifications systems."
Dr Nelson said there had been many ways in which children had been used by earlier generations that would not be defended today.
Dr Nelson said the use of naked children in art could not continue.
"And whilst it is very hard to define explicitly where it is appropriate or not appropriate to use children in this way, I think most Australians would accept this is not appropriate," he said.
"And that the child concerned defends the photographs in my view merely compounds what has happened."
Paul Neville
Qld Federal
Member of the House of Reps
National Party
Electorate: Hinkler
Spoke in favour of greater TV Regulation during the controversy over the 2005 version of BIG BROTHER.
Quoted from:
Hands off our code. The Age 18.08.05
Nationals MP Paul Neville said yesterday he was
appalled by scenes on the late-night show and strongly endorsed the move.
"Free-to-air television is supposed to have a code of conduct,"
he said. "A row of beds in a circle with young nubile girls and
excited blokes and saying that 'oh no, we're just reflecting community
standards', is absolute twaddle."
He said the voluntary code was ineffective and there was a good argument
for suspending programs until episodes were found to meet the guidelines.
Quoted from
Too hot for TV. Today Tonight 18.08.05
Nationals MP Paul
Neville said that if a television station did not observe the industry
code of conduct, there was a case for government intervention.
He suggested the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
should have sweeping powers to force low-grade programs off the air,
instead of the power being in the hands of politicians.
"When a series is challenged, the episode that is being challenged
should be reviewed by the ACMA," Mr Neville said. "And until
it's reviewed, the series suspended."
***
Media Release
Neville Applauds ACMA Findings On Big Brother Uncut
Thursday, 6 October 2005
Paul Neville’s stand on Big Brother Uncut has led to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) disciplining Channel 10 for breaching the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice in three episodes of the program.
One of Mr Neville’s suggestions – that Big Brother Uncut be subject to viewing and pre-classification prior to broadcast – was adopted by the ACMA in its rulings.
“I am not a zealot about censorship, but when an industry is allowed to regulate itself through a code of practice it has an obligation to maintain those standards,” Mr Neville said.
Mr Neville raised the matter in the Joint Party Room earlier this year, spoke on the issue in Parliament and spoke with ACMA official in Canberra.
He described some episodes of the program as demeaning and a poor excuse to show gratuitous sexual activity.
“Quite apart from this, it was mind-numbing banality and lowered the standards of Australia free to air television.”
“A number of episodes were clearly beyond the MA 15+ classification and ACMA found that to be the case in at least three instances.”
“It is insulting to Australian viewers to suggest that a semi-circle of double beds containing nubile girls and active young men in a group situation as being reflective of community standards. It is simply nonsense.”
“I was also troubled to hear of the number of young people openly discussing this program.”
“When people rent videos, go to the movies or buy an X-rated product from the ACT, they do so with the clear knowledge of what they are buying and what they are getting.”
“Free to air television is a different medium - the public has a right to expect that licensed television stations will aspire to high standards and maintain the Code of Practice.”
***
Despite winning the push for increased censorship of BIG BROTHER, he was back complaining about the 2006 version. BIG BROTHER: UNCUT had now became Big Brother: Adults Only. Political pressure saw Channel 10 scrap the final four episodes in June 2006.
Quoted from:
Ten pulls Brother after MP scalding. The Australian 24.06.06
During Tuesday's partyroom meeting, committee chair Trish Draper and Nationals MP Paul Neville complained directly to John Howard about Big Brother.
Mr Neville is an influential member of the backbench communications committee closely scrutinising proposals for media reform.
Fred Nile
NSW State
Member of the Legislative Council
Christian Democratic Party
A long history of pro-censorship action stretching back to the early 80's NSW ban on the X18+ rating.
***
In the 80's he fought against the release of HAIL MARY and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.
Quoted from:
His 2004 review of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.
"I have condemned many anti-Christian,
blasphemous, pornographic films during the years, such as Hail Mary
and The Last Temptation of Christ, which I said were produced
by the devil in the studios of hell.
***
Had this to say about the Classification Board passing SALO in 1993.
NSW Legislative Council
7th September 1993
"Salo" Film Classification
Speakers - Nile Reverend The Hon Fred
Business - Adjournment
"SALO" FILM CLASSIFICATION
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.8]: The matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House concerns a controversial decision made by the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review in regard to a film called "Salo". Like many members in this House and those in other parliaments of Australia, we were shocked when the film was passed for screening in Australia after its prohibition for 17 years. It was correctly banned by the Commonwealth Film and Literature Classification Board, which is not known for its rigid decisions. That ban should have been upheld. However, the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review overruled its decision. The film is now being shown in various theatres around Australia, including one in Paddington.
Call to Australia believes the original decision of the Commonwealth Film and Literature Classification Board was correct. "Salo" has been described as a film involving a great deal of violence and degradation, particularly of teenage girls. Even Mr Evan Williams, Chairman of the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review, which overthrew the decision of the classification board, is quoted in the Australian of 21st May as saying that "Salo" contains "scenes of concentrated foulness, sexual torment and sadistic humiliation of an extreme kind" - in relation mainly to the degradation of teenage girls. The film promotes, by implication, child pornography because the press articles show naked "Salo" actors, arguably under the age of sixteen years. We believe that this film, by its contents, through the display of such violence is but another step in the desensitisation process that will entice many who view the film to become involved in sexual violence themselves.
The producer of "Salo" - apparently a sexually perverse person - finally killed himself. Why should the perversion of a sick mind be allowed to be fed into the minds of Australian adults and children if this film is eventually allowed to be screened, even in an edited version on television? We believe the film was produced as a deliberate attack on attempts to censor such pornographic films. Other comments about the film include those by Neil Gillet, the film reviewer of the Melbourne Age, who described "Salo" as:
. . . a vile film. It is a treat for sadists and other psychopaths . . . The shock of watching this film numbs the mind to anything but the violence, Pasolini's apparent relish in presenting it and conjecture about how he persuaded, or coerced, the cast - especially the younger actors - into following the director's orders.
Those younger actors, mainly teenage girls, were degraded in the production of the film, which will have similar impact on viewers. Mr Keith Connolly, the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Review that released the film, considered "Salo" to be "an utterly appalling chronicle of human depravity". Nevertheless, he voted to release it for exhibition with an R rating, and later revealed that the vote by the review board was unanimous. That revelation makes me wonder whether the review board should not be sacked and other persons appointed, given that its members can make such statements yet be unanimous in overthrowing the decision of the classification board that the film should not have been shown. "Salo" can now be seen by anyone over 17 years of age. The whole point is that the review board was stating what is described as a classic liberal position - of philosophy, not of politics - that anyone over the age of 17 should be perfectly free to witness any film he or she wishes and - presumably, one might add - free to read any book or to undergo any experience.
***
In 2001 he spoke out against the MA15+ rating warded to HANNIBAL. The Attorney-General Daryl Williams eventually called for a review which saw the rating increased to R18+.
'Hannibal' has crossed the Australian standards of decency
Christian Democratic Party
MEDIA RELEASE
9 February 2001
The Rev Fred Nile MLC, Hon National President of the Christian Democratic Party and Member of the NSW Parliament, has strongly condemned the soft policies of the Federal Film Censors concerning the ultra-violent film 'Hannibal' with its MA rating for children. The anti violence campaigner, Rev Fred Nile MLC, said "The community is shocked at the soft MA classification which the Federal Censors - the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), gave to the new ultra-violent film 'HANNIBAL'".
"It seems this Federal Censorship Office is being influenced by representatives of the anti-censorship lobby from AXIS (hard core porn move distributor) which it met with last November, and the Eros Foundation, (lobby group for the porn industry)".
"The MA rating is meaningless as it has no legal enforcement powers, so that hundreds of 13 and 14 year old boys are being allowed to watch these violent and pornographic films".
"If the Howard Government was serious they would amend the Censorship Regulations, so that children under 15 years are legally not allowed to enter the theatre to watch an MA, or M-rated violent, porn movie, with heavy fines for theatre owners who allowed children to enter their theatre".
"SURELY THE RECENT BLOODY, BRUTAL MURDER OF A 3 YEAR OLD GIRL BY A 13 YEAR OLD BOY SHOULD SHAKE UP THE FEDERAL CENSORS FROM THEIR COMPLACENCY".
"The Federal Censorship Office must urgently re-classify the 'HANNIBAL' movie at least as an R-rated film only for adults" urged Rev Fred Nile MLC.
***
It was a compliant letter from Nile that saw the Police attend, and stop the Balmain screening of KEN PARK in July 2003.
Media Release
04.07.03
The Power of One – Fred Nile strikes again
The Rev Fred Nile MLC, member of the NSW Parliament has congratulated the NSW Police Force for their prompt response to his written complaint to uphold the Commonwealth and NSW film censorship laws against the hard core – child pornography film, "Ken Park".
"I am very pleased that the NSW Police Force has upheld the law without fear or favour, in spite of the deliberate attempt by prominent media persons to break the law such as David Marr (ABC/Sydney Morning Herald) and Margaret Pomeranz (SBS)."
"If teenage actors in the "Ken Park" film portray under 16 year olds in nude, explicit sex and suicide scenes etc. it is legally child pornography," said Rev Fred Nile MLC, "and, according to the classification guidelines, must be prohibited."
***
In 2004, a complaint by Nile, along with the AFA, saw IRREVERSIBLE go before the Classification Review Board. This time they failed, and the R18+ was retained.
‘Irreversible’ unforgivable?
Christian Democratic Party
Thursday 19th February 2004
Rev Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party has written to the Federal Attorney General asking for the film “Irreversible” to be prohibited from screening in Australia. His letter is as follows: “I have just discovered that the film "Irreversible", which created some controversy when it was screened during several film festivals in Australia last year, was classified "R" by the OFLC last November.
This film would have contravened the OFLC guidelines operating before March 2003. It contains a scene of actual fellatio - with explicit genital contact - clearly prohibited under the old guidelines.
It opens with a scene of excessive, graphic, detailed violence - a man's head is beaten to a pulp with a fire extinguisher. It contains an excessively prolonged and disturbing (nearly ten minute) scene of anal rape. Many women, even film reviewers, were sickened by this 9 minutes of brutal sodomy. [See review at: http://www.nypost.com/movies/55502.htm]
The guidelines say that films will be refused classification if they contain, among other things, "violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed; sexual violence, cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact."
The high impact of the violence in this film was so great that large numbers of people walked out during screenings, despite being warned of the content in advance.
Has the OFLC become desensitised to graphic sexual and other violence? Is there no film with violence of impact high enough to be refused classification?
The new guidelines are written in relative terms - "high impact" receives a higher rating than "low impact". When the boundaries are pushed, and films which would formerly have received an "RC" classification are rated "R" instead, the whole system moves in a more permissive direction.
As more explicit sexual and other violence is
allowed in the R category, so the boundaries are made more libertarian in MA, M,
PG - even G films are ultimately affected. I urge you, as Attorney-General in
the national interest to request the Film Review Board to review the
"R" classification given to the film "Irreversible" and to
prohibit its screening in Australia”.
Note that he claims one of his concerns is that:
"As more explicit sexual and other violence is allowed in the R category, so the boundaries are made more libertarian in MA, M, PG"
This more liberal approach has allowed THE PASSION OF CHRIST to be passed MA15+. This is a film that Nile has had nothing but praise for, his review states:
"I believe The Passion of Christ, through Mel Gibson's inspired faith and leadership, was produced by the guidance of Almighty God through the Holy Spirit in the studios of heaven."
Under a more restrictive OFLC, THE PASSION OF CHRIST should have received an R18+. In the UK and Canada it was restricted to those over 18, and in the USA 17.
***
In February 2004 he protested against LA Fura Dels Baus: XXX which was playing at the Enmore Theatre in Sydney.
NSW Legislative Council Hansard
26.02.04
XXX COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF FILM AND LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION
Page: 6647
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice,
representing the Minister for Police and the Attorney General, a question
without notice. Is it a fact that the Spanish hard-core pornographic live
stage show and film production called XXX opened last night, until
7 March 2004, at the Enmore Theatre, Newtown? Is it a fact that the
Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification, following the
Melbourne presentation, proposed to refuse classification to segments of
the hard-core pornographic film shown on stage, but finally reclassified
those segments R-rated if they were blurred? What action is the New South
Wales Police Force taking to enforce the Commonwealth's ruling as State
police have the responsibility to stop persons under 18 years of age
attending XXX ? What action is the New South Wales Police Force or
the Attorney General taking to ensure New South Wales criminal laws
concerning offensive behaviour, et cetera, are not being broken by the XXX
production?
***
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 (Proof)
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT
AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL
Page: 23
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 5 May 2005.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.15 p.m.]: I oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, about which a number of members have spoken. Following the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, I reiterate the Christian Democratic Party's total opposition to this bill and call on all honourable members to reject it. X-rated videos have a long history in New South Wales. The most recent bulletin of the Eros Association provides an up-to-date report on this issue. It states that it hopes this bill is passed, and congratulates the Hon. Peter Breen on introducing it. It states also:
The Rev Fred Nile is pretty smart. In 1985 he single handedly had X-rated videos banned in NSW. He outsmarted and out-witted the urbane Labor Premier, Neville Wran, just as easily as you please.
I suppose that is a way to get Labor people to vote for it: by attacking a very wise decision made by Premier Wran at that time. It states also:
So the introduction of a new Private Member's Bill in NSW to legalise the sale of X videos … offers NSW politicians the chance to put themselves on the X rated morality they line up with Fred Nile on one end or do they titter down the see saw to a more balanced position? Do they represent people in their electorates who support Fred Nile's position on morality or do they represent the type of person who might hire out an adult video to watch with their partner on a night after the footy …
An Independent member in the Upper House, Peter Breen, has introduced the Bill.
We all know the jargon used to describe the topic we are debating. The X-rated video industry uses the term "adult videos", and those who sell them formed an Adult Video Association. We are talking about hard-core obscene videos that are normally associated with organised crime. When the Hon. Peter Breen introduced this bill he said he wanted to get rid of organised crime. He said there will be no crime if we legalise X-rated videos. I will inform the honourable member about those who run the X-rated video industry.
***
June 2005 saw him on the case of smut in the TV show BIG BROTHER.
NSW
Legislative Council Hansard (Proof)
23.06.05
"BIG BROTHER" TELEVISION PROGRAM
Page: 40
Reverend the Hon. (Fred) Frederick John
NILE, MLC
Current Member of the Legislative Council
Temporary Chair of Committees
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Community Services, a question without notice. Further to my question on notice of 8 June concerning the "Big Brother" television program, is it a fact that the head of Channel 10 corporate relations, Margaret Fearn, admits that the channel made an error over explicit scenes such as a "Big Brother" contestant rubbing his penis in the hair behind an unwilling, unknowing female contestant? Is it a fact that the President of Young Media Australia, Jane Roberts, claims that the penis incident broke the television industry code of conduct? As more than 33,720 children under 12 years of age and 65,070 children aged 13 to 17 years watched this obscene exposure incident on Channel 10, and as Channel 10 is based in Sydney, what action has the department taken to protect the children of New South Wales from moral danger?
***
January 2006 saw him unhappy about the film BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.
Quoted from:
'Brokeback Mountain' attacked by Christian groups. ABC Radio National PM
Program 10.01.06
FRED NILE: I think it's causing a great
confusion to have two homosexual cowboys after all the popularity of the
cowboy theme in American themes.
DANIEL HOARE: So you don't think this movie is suitable for a mass-market
audience?
FRED NILE: No.
DANIEL HOARE: How do you think it should be distributed?
FRED NILE: Well not distributed at all, I suppose. But I imagine if it's
on videos, and people from the homosexual community would hire copies of
it, or purchase copies of it.
DANIEL HOARE: Will you be mobilising opposition to the film?
FRED NILE: Yes, I'll be… I'll be making contact with similar pro-family
groups to see whether there should be some action taken against it. Yep.
***
Some interesting debate from the second reading of the NSW Defamation Bill.
NSW Legislative Council Hansard
Extract from Transcript of Hansard 18/10/2005 (Article No.47)
DEFAMATION BILL Page: 18681
Second Reading
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.44 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Defamation Bill, which repeals and replaces the Defamation Act 1974 and implements the uniform model defamation provisions endorsed by the State and Territory Ministers and the Standing Committee of Attorneys General. I am pleased that the bill has finally been produced after many years of discussion in seeking to have uniform legislation. Unfortunately, my observation is that this bill reflects, in the main, the New South Wales legislation. It is as if New South Wales has not made any concessions in the negotiations, so each change affects the other States; the other States will now come into line with New South Wales legislation. My concern is that there is still room for some improvement in the New South Wales law which would now apply to this Defamation Bill. I hope that the Government, through the annual meetings of the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the State Attorneys General, will review this bill to see whether areas in this new uniform legislation need to be improved and amended if necessary.
In other words, I do not think we should consider that this Defamation Bill is set in cement, or that it cannot be changed in the future if changes are warranted, if there are weaknesses or areas in which it can be improved. I do not regard myself as an expert on defamation, except that I have been the victim of the New South Wales defamation law. I have been sued for defamation on four occasions. On the first occasion I was taken before the Broadcasting Tribunal by the Gay Solidarity organisation when I was broadcasting on 2GB. I spent a great deal of time with barristers discussing the New South Wales defamation law. One case involved being sued by the Chief Censor for criticism of her actions in regard to the Hail Mary film.
Another case involved a former Labor member of this Parliament, George Petersen, who objected to a comment I made on the ABC. I did not refer to him by name but he took offence. On the third occasion I was sued by a person who claimed to be a recognised homosexual minister, but he was not recognised as such. The fourth case involved a leading peddler of pornography in Sydney who took his case to the Australian Capital Territory. All those cases were settled so none of them actually proceeded before the court. In each case the legal advice I received was along these lines: "It's almost impossible to win a defamation case. You should authorise us to do all we can to arrange a settlement. We don't believe you have made any errors in what you have said. You are not guilty of anything, but the way the defamation law works there is always a chance you will be found guilty and that it could cost you tens of thousands of dollars because until this bill came in there was no limit on what could be awarded against you."
I remember that each time the lawyers would say something along the lines of, "You know you'll probably lose your house if you proceed." In other words, it would cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. When one is making fair comment on social and moral issues it is frustrating suddenly to find the defamation law being used to silence and harass. Under the defamation law, once legal action commences, one receives legal advice that one cannot comment further on the particular matter. So each action becomes a form of censorship. In the chief censor case I sent out a request for prayer. It got into Janet Strickland's hands, and she then issued a second action against me for aggravation of defamation. I aggravated her by making it public that I was being sued. In some way one is supposed to be silent and suffer silently.
The other thing that always troubled me was that lawyers would say, "The only thing they have to prove in court is that you have said something that brings that person into public contempt or odium"—they would use those kinds of words—"and that can be reasonably upheld." This bill talks about establishing truth alone as a defence. In each of my cases that is all I had, truth, but they said truth was not enough under New South Wales defamation laws. According to the Attorney General's briefing note, the bill "establishes truth alone as a defence—the existing and unique position in the NSW law is 'truth plus public interest'". There must be some variation in the way defamation lawyers interpret the previous law, and that would now apply to this bill. I do not think that has clarified the issue as to whether one can be sued for defamation if one is telling the truth.
I think it is an advantage to have uniform legislation in Australia. In one of those cases against me, the person who was responsible for producing pornography took offence when I used the phrase that people who produced pornography were similar to cockroaches. I was talking about cockroaches loving darkness, and I said that pornography was in that category. That person decided to proceed through the Australian Capital Territory courts, and I was told it is a lot easier to win a case in the ACT than in New South Wales. Apparently one can pick the place where one joins an action.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: How did you go in that case?
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I had to settle and spend a lot of money, except in only one case, when I was dealing with the man who was claiming to be a recognised homosexual minister. The solicitor rang me and told me the case was now ended. I said, "They are not going to proceed with the action?" He said, "No, he has just passed away." That was a relief. The bill is modelled to a large extent on the existing law in New South Wales, with some modifications and improvements. It still has a fair way to go.
The main legislative changes make the publication, rather than the imputation arising from it, the cause of action. The Act now has a statement of the object and principles that apply under the existing New South Wales law. Each of the changes is already part of our existing law. The bill abolishes the distinction between slander and libel. Again this is part of our existing law. The bill also provides a procedure for the resolution of civil disputes without litigation. Again, this is within our existing law. It also retains the limitation period of one year subject to an extension, in limited circumstances, for a period of three years. Again, this is already contained in New South Wales law.
Probably one of the major changes is in regard to actions that can be taken by corporations. The bill precludes corporations, other than small businesses and those operating on a not-for-profit basis, from suing for defamation, like current New South Wales law. A small business is defined as a business that employs fewer than 10 employees. Also, individuals associated with corporations who are personally defamed may continue to sue in their own right. The reference to corporations probably relates to McDonald's, who we know spent millions of dollars in a case in the United Kingdom and probably attempted to do something similar in Australia. A number of groups and individuals are running a campaign against McDonald's as a corporation. They disagree with fast food companies and particularly what they regard as multinational American-based companies. Their campaign is more political and ideological rather than being based on concerns about food.
One of the big improvements in the legislation is that it creates an indexed statutory cap of $250,000 on the amount of damages that may be awarded for non-economic loss. Prior to that cap it was very much open-ended as to how much it would cost someone who lost the case. Damages for economic loss will not be limited. This will bring the tort of defamation into closer alignment with the recent tort law reforms. The legislation continues to provide for costs penalties for conduct such as the unreasonable failure to make or accept settlement offers. This is the existing position under New South Wales law. In a letter I received from FreeTV, the Combined Media Defamation Reform Group indicated support for the legislation and support for the provision that corporations now cannot use the defamation laws. The letter, dated 4 October 2005, states:
While we oppose the right of all corporations to sue for defamation we appreciate the concerns raised in relation to small business and not for capital gain business.
The letter goes on to say:
… under the current proposal, all corporations retain the right to bring an action for criminal libel, injurious or malicious falsehood, slander of title and breach of confidence, or to seek relief under s52 of the Trade Practices Act.
So, corporations still have those avenues open to them. I imagine companies like McDonald's and others, if they wish to take action, will have those opportunities open to them. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, but it should be kept under review and it still needs improvement.
The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.56 p.m.]: I share some of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's concerns about the defamation law in New South Wales. Although personally I have not been sued for defamation—
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Yet.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: Yet.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I have never sued anybody even though I have been defamed regularly.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile makes the point that although he has been sued, he has not sued anyone. Similarly, I have never sued anyone for defamation, although I was sorely tempted during the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. The Australian described me as the corrupt Peter Breen, head of the Unity party. I duly made a protest to the Australian and said, "This was highly defamatory. It damns my reputation and causes me great hurt. I seek an apology." A week after I wrote the letter the Australian published an apology, which said that on such and such a day the Australian "published an article in which Mr Breen was described as the corrupt Mr Breen, leader of the Unity party. The Australian wishes to inform readers that Mr Breen is not the head of the Unity party." That was the apology. That left outstanding the question whether I was corrupt.
I took advice about that and was informed of two things. The first was that the apology itself aggravated the defamation and in the opinion of the person giving the advice that meant that I could substantially increase my damages if I were successful. The other aspect of the advice was that because I was a politician, and because politicians were out in the public arena and supposed to be able to withstand those types of criticisms more than people in private enterprise—
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You are fair game.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: You are fair game, and I should just cop it on the chin, which I did. I complained to the Press Council, and I found that process quite useful. The Press Council eventually called the newspaper to account and there was some resolution. I was reluctant to sue, if only for the experience of John Marsden, who sued Channel 7 in quite a famous case involving an imputation on two programs broadcast by Channel 7 as to whether he had had underage sex. In that case Mr Marsden was successful in respect of both imputations and got $250,000 for each imputation, but his legal bill was about $7.2 million. The fact that someone has to expend that kind of money on lawyers in order to get an award for damages points to the inadequacy of this State's defamation laws.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He did get costs too.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: He was extremely lucky to get costs: if the award had been less than $250,000 for each imputation he would not have been awarded costs. Had he not been awarded costs, he would have been bankrupted. As it is, he is suffering terminal cancer, and he believes that the action was responsible for, or precipitated, his medical condition. There are really no winners in defamation law. I agree with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that suing for defamation is a foolhardy exercise. I hope that I will never have to do it, as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile never has. I would like to make an observation about the bill in relation to the defence of truth alone and also in relation to the cap on general damages under clause 34. My initial reaction to the bill was that having uniform defamation laws throughout Australia was a good development. The Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, has been arguing for it for many years now. Indeed, he threatened to pass a Federal law if the States did not come into line.
The issue of truth was a sticking point for New South Wales because until the bill becomes law, truth alone is not a defence in New South Wales; the defamatory imputation also has to be in the public interest. Amongst the groups that lobbied me on the bill were a group of people from the newspaper industry who said that they were in favour of the new laws. That immediately raised my antenna and I questioned why newspaper proprietors would be so keen for the law to go through. The explanation is that if newspapers can show that material they publish is true, they will avoid any prospect of an action. For example, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has been said to have a wall of videos at his house.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Which is not true.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: Which is not true. But if it were true, and someone published that information in a newspaper, the question that would arise under the present law is: Is it in the public interest to publish that fact? To my mind the public interest test is a good brake on what the newspapers can publish. If it were the case that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile had R-rated and X-rated videos for research purposes, or for whatever purposes he might want to have them—and given his opposition to the pornography industry over the years and his work in the Christian church—it would not be in the public interest for newspapers to publish that information in a derogatory or defamatory way. But the new law will mean that newspapers would be able to publish such information about a person provided it is true.
***
NSW Legislative Council Hansard Extract from Transcript of Hansard 01/12/2005 (Article No.29)
CARINGBAH SEX SHOP LOCATION
Page: 20425
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Planning, a question without notice. It is a fact that on 7 April 2005 at a Land and Environment Court hearing Commissioner Robert Hussey stated, "I don't think two sex shops for Caringbah would be a problem, maybe three or four." The commissioner gave approval for a second pornography shop less than 100 metres from a preschool and within 200 metres of two schools, a baby health centre, a library and the YWCA. Within two months of its opening there have been two attempted abductions of children in Caringbah, both in close proximity to the second shop. Why does the Government allow these pornography shops to operate so close to schools and family-oriented services and the overall wishes of local councils, especially the wishes of parents and residents of the area, thereby putting the lives of children at risk? What action will the Government take to change the objectives, priorities and policies of the Land and Environment Court, which is completely out of touch with community standards?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Obviously, this is a question for the Minister for Planning. I certainly will refer it to him. I am not aware of the comments, and I am not aware of any police evidence that shows any causal connection between the events that were outlined, but maybe there is. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Planning.
***
Although he supported the NSW Classification Enforcement Amendment Bill 2007 bill, he had these concerns.
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer
Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2007
Legislative Council
13 November 2007
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.01 p.m.]:
I ask the Attorney General to reassure the House that that exemption in no way
could be used as a backdoor method of having an X-rated film or video approved
for display at a film festival or some other gathering in New South Wales, nor
could it be used for the screening of material that is, if classified, X-rated
or is completely rejected and therefore unclassified material, which is even
worse than X-rated material.
Obviously the House would not want this legislation and its exempting provisions to be abused by people who are interested in screening X-rated material. I seek an assurance from the Attorney General that the legislation is intended to be narrowly interpreted to cover archival material and old or historical material that does not have to be classified, and to restrict the screening of that material at educational gatherings, museums, universities and other appropriate places. The legislation makes it clear that the legislation in no way will change the functions of the Classification Board or the Classification Review Board. Changes in the bill to the convener's powers relate to be the issuing of classification certificates and the written notice of a decision on the delegation of powers to other review board members and public service staff. The convener will also have power to waive fees payable to the Classification Review Board.
As honourable members know, under the current system the board determines the original classification. The promoter of a film, if unhappy with a classification, may appeal to the Classification Review Board. Sometimes the original decision is overturned or modified in some way. Because of the concern in the community particularly about some of the material coming through on computer games, which are very violent and encourage violent behaviour in children or teenagers who watch them, that material needs to be classified and caught by the legislation. The Commonwealth and State legislation deals with new developments. Classification of that type of material will be ongoing. New types of electronic equipment are being produced to convey images. Eventually further amendments to legislation may be required as new modes of technology, new devices, become available. New labelling may be required. Sometimes advanced technology is used for good and sometimes it is used for evil. Therefore, it is important for us to have a classification system to control material and the images conveyed. Subject to receiving a reassurance from the Attorney General in relation the points I have raised, the Christian Democratic Party will support the bill.
***
Proud of the NSW X-rated ban
In November 2009 he announced that he would not be standing at the next election.
Quoted from:
Father of the house, Rev Fred, to retire
smh.com.au, November 12, 2009
Asked about his achievements, Mr Nile lamented that he was often typecast as a morals campaigner by the media. ''People say Fred Nile is obsessed with sex. But I have a wide range of issues.'' In particular, he nominated his role in securing laws that restrict the display of tobacco products in shops and restricting smoking in cars. He was also proud of campaigning to have X-rated films banned for sale in NSW.
