Kevin Rudd Interview with Karl Stefanovic
Today Program, Nine Network
23 May 2008

STEFANOVIC: I want to show you some photos this is an art exhibition in Sydney that is causing quite a stir. These are images from Bill Henson, now one critic says that he is an artist of ferocious integrity who depicts androgenous girls and boys adrift in the nocturnal turmoil of adolescence? What we say is, is that, that is crossing the line. What do you say?

PM: That’s the first time I've seen them. I think they're revolting.

STEFANOVIC: Should the Government step in here with some sort of or some level of control here?

PM: Well, the NSW authorities through the police are already examining this matter which is why I'm not going to comment on a legal process.

STEFANOVIC: As a Dad how do they make you feel, those photos?

PM: I’ve just said, it's the first time I've seen them, I find them absolutely revolting. Kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected. I have a very deep view of this. For god sake, let's just allow kids to be kids. Whatever the artistic view or the merits of that sort of stuff, frankly I don't think there are any. Just allow kids to be kids you know.

Kevin Rudd
Interview with Mike Carlton and Sandy Aloisi, 
2UE Radio, Sydney
23 May 2008

CARLTON: Alright. Can we switch to another topic, there is a bit of a storm here in Sydney this morning. An exhibition of photography was to be shown at a gallery in Paddington last night. Images of kids as young as 12 and 13, apparently naked. Do you have a view on that?

PM: Well I have just done the Channel 9 Today Program and for the first time I saw these images. I will say on your program what I said when I saw these images only half an hour ago.

I think they are revolting. That’s the first point and the second is, I don’t understand why we cant allow kids just to have their childhood and to be able to enjoy their childhood. I really have a problem with this.

But I notice that these matters are currently with the NSW Police, so I’m sure the police will make their own determination through the law about what should happen next.

CARLTON: (Inaudible) about police officers marching into art gallery’s and shutting things down?

PM: They are required to act within the definitions of the law. I presume what their policing here in NSW will be the equivalent of the obscenity provisions of the code. Because that’s what would apply in these circumstances. That’s why I’m reluctant to comment on the police process. They are independent and they are required to enforce the law (inaudible).

For the first time I saw the images on television, as I said, about half an hour ago. Frankly I think they are revolting and I just don’t understand why we can’t allow kids to enjoy something of the innocence of childhood.

NSW Police
Media Release
Police seize numerous art works – Paddington 
Friday, 23 May 2008 
04:47pm

Police have seized numerous items as part of an investigation launched into art works displayed at an exhibition in Paddington.

About 2pm yesterday, police received a report from a concerned member of the public about the nature of the work displayed at the gallery on Hampden Street. Several other complaints have since been reported.

Officers from Rose Bay Local Area Command have conducted extensive investigations into the complaints, with assistance from detectives with the State Crime Command’s Child Protection and Sex Crimes Squad.

Officers executed a search warrant at the premises this morning, and have since seized more than 20 works from the 41 piece series.

The images are believed to depict a child under the age of 16. Police are currently investigating the possible prosecution of offences regarding the act of publish indecent article under the Crimes Act.

Police are yet to speak with all parties involved with the exhibition, and are unable to speculate on an outcome at this early stage of the investigation.

Inquiries are continuing.

The gallery's owner, Roslyn Oxley, said she had been showing similar work by Henson since 1990 "and they have never offended people".

Asked by Channel Seven if she would let her daughter pose for Henson, she said: "She's been in some of his shots."

Henson said last night he was determined the exhibition should go ahead.

One artist who attended the exhibition opening, Eugenia Raskopoulos, said the cancellation was "censorship of the worst kind".

"I cannot believe that they have cancelled this opening which features pictures that are honest and beautiful and in no way pornographic," she said.

Rose Bay Local Area Commander Allan Sicard said NSW Police expected to lay charges over the images - taken in a Melbourne studio - by artist Bill Henson, which were to go on display at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington last night.

"Police are investigating this matter and it is likely that we will proceed to prosecution on the offence of publish an indecent article under the Crimes Act," he told reporters today.

In a statement posted outside the gallery today, manager Amanda Rowell said the works had been withdrawn in response to the controversy.

The gallery said it would re-open the exhbition without the offending images.

"Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung," it said in a statement.

It is the gallery's second raid.

Late yesterday detectives swooped on the Eastern Suburbs gallery, interviewing owners Roslyn and Tony Oxley and Henson over the content of the exhibition.

Detectives from the Child Exploitation Internet Unit were also called in to investigate the contents of the gallery's website.

The webpage displayed all 41 of the naked images, but they have now been taken down and a spokesman from the Australian Communication and Media Authority said the web link was being investigated.

While the models are apparently Australian, the website appears to have been sourced from another country, making it hard for Australian authorities to act.

Ms Johnston called the unit a "toothless tiger" and said that even art should be classified.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma also weighed in from China, condemning the exhibition.

"I find it offensive and disgusting. I don't understand why parents would agree to allow their kids to be photographed like this," Mr Iemma said.

News Ltd understands the exhibition was never classified officially, as art is considered exempt, and that the exhibition and the web page will be investigated separately.

NSW Minister for the Arts Frank Sartor saw the images - some of which may have been taken up to a decade ago - yesterday and said they crossed the line. "I have been shown some of the images and I don't like them," he said.

"I'm sure these images will be debated by the community.

"Ultimately, I think these images do push the boundaries and I can understand why people would be offended."

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Australian Federal Police: Discussion
Date 26 May, 2008 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Department Attorney-General's Department 
Program Australian Federal Police
Page 5 
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm. 
Source Senate

Talk Senator BARNETT—Sure. Would the depiction of a 12-year-old girl on the internet be prima facie a concern that you would be investigating?

Talk Mr Keelty—Are you talking about a specific case now?

Talk Senator BARNETT—Not as yet, no. I am asking you the question.

Talk Mr Keelty—If the depiction translates to child pornography, yes. The problem with the internet is, as broad as it is, there is a significant amount of pornography on there, as opposed to child pornography. So trying to discern between the two is somewhat difficult. The Australian High Tech Crime Centre has a threshold where it will deal with matters. The problem is that there is so much pornography on the internet that you have to create a threshold; otherwise you would never get your priorities right. As I said, our highest priority is to remove children who are potentially the subject of harm from that harm.

Talk Senator BARNETT—I can see exactly where you are coming from. But in terms of child pornography or the explicit depictions of young girls, some people would see that as child abuse because of the relaying and communicating of those pictures over the internet. That would be a crime, I assume.

Talk Mr Keelty—That is correct.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Do you work with ACMA in locating the various websites or identifying those particular websites and do they then follow up on your advice to close down those websites? What is your relationship with ACMA? Can you describe that to the committee?

Talk Mr Keelty—The relationship is a positive one, and the answer to your question is, yes, we have closed down sites. We cooperate with a large number of agencies in relation to child pornography. Significantly, a lot of that cooperation is offshore. We have what we call a Virtual Global Taskforce, which is a task force in cooperation with the UK, Canada and the US. We not only cooperate with ACMA; we also cooperate with all agencies that have an involvement in this. If I can recall correctly the statistics, in the order of 3,000 referrals on child pornography have come to the AFP in the last 12 months. Of those referrals, 900 have gone to state and territory police. About 300 referrals have come to the AFP. That has converted to about 24 arrests. Those figures are off the top of my head.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Were those 24 arrests in Australia or overseas?

Talk Mr Keelty—In Australia. I can give you the actual figures now. Since March 2005 the child protection online team has laid more than 270 charges against 110 individuals.

Talk Senator BARNETT—And the results?

Talk Mr Keelty—They would be before the court.

Talk Senator BARNETT—But are they all still before the court?

Talk Mr Keelty—There would be a percentage still before the court. There would be a percentage dealt with.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Could you take that on notice and advise the committee. There has been a good deal of media coverage over the last few days about Bill Henson in Sydney. One report indicates that if you plug ‘Bill Henson’ into Google you get 757 files. The report says that many are not nudes but many are. Obviously, there is a good deal of public discussion about the police closing down or seizing 20 photo images at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney last week. Firstly, can you advise the committee on whether the Australian Federal Police was aware of or involved in that investigation, without going into the details?

Talk Mr Keelty—We are obviously aware of the investigation, but it is being led by the New South Wales police and at this point in time there is no need for us to extend our involvement in the matter. It is being dealt with by the New South Wales police.

Talk Senator BARNETT—You say that, but are federal crimes possibly being committed here in terms of internet downloading of pornographic material?

Talk Mr Keelty—There is a potential for it but, at the moment, the investigation is being adequately handled by the New South Wales police. To give you a picture of the size of the problem, one internet site overseas recently was hacked and child pornography images were placed on that internet site. Within 72 hours, 12 million people from around the world accessed that site. Some 3,000 of that 12 million were from Australia. The nature of what we are dealing with here is quite significant in terms of quantity. In terms of the matter you just raised with me, my view is it is being adequately dealt with by the New South Wales police and it is appropriate that they continue with that inquiry.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Would they refer certain matters to you if they believed that they needed to be attended to by the Australian Federal Police?

Talk Mr Keelty—They certainly can, and they do in other cases.

Talk Senator BARNETT—In that instance of the Auxin task force, that is what was being done; there was references from state police to the AFP and likewise?

Talk Mr Keelty—That is exactly what happened. It came to us through Interpol, we worked out what states and territories were involved and then we disseminated the information to the states and territories.

Talk Senator BARNETT—You have to make a decision because you only have so many resources. You have 91 in the task force, you advised earlier, and you indicated the enormity of the problem. Over the weekend the Prime Minister referred to the depiction as ‘absolutely revolting’, Mr Garrett has referred to it using other words and Ms Macklin yesterday expressed her concerns about the sexualisation of girls and this particular issue raising its head. Do you have the resources to deal with the concerns and with the problem that is in the community at the moment that you have described as ‘huge’—or I have used the word ‘huge’?

Talk Mr Keelty—Just to have it clear: there is a group of people who specialise in this area and we have techniques and technology to work with to identify the problem areas. We then use other resources of the AFP to conduct the overt side of the operation. In that sense, the team that is there—the cyber-safety team—is being built over the course of the next couple of years, so our ability to identify these matters will be enhanced. There will also be an increase in staffing to the AFP over the same period, so we will be able to deal with the other matters as well.

As I mentioned to you, the critical issue here is to identify children who are at risk and to remove them from that risk. The AFP is not in a position to do that all over Australia; what we do is receive the full cooperation of the state and territory police, identify the children at risk and get assistance from the state and territory police to remove those children from those areas.

Talk Senator BARNETT—You are making the claim—and I can understand, in light of the resources that you have—that you cannot deal with the concerns of all those children at risk. There are thousands of them out there, you are saying. We also have the problem of these crimes being committed and the offenders not being dealt with adequately because we do not have the resources to deal with them.

Talk Mr Keelty—To clarify: the description I gave about the size of the problem was just to let you know that we have to have a threshold somewhere, as we do with all crime. This is a serious crime, and we try to deal with it within the resources we have, which are at the moment proving to be adequate. It is not just the AFP; we have, as I mentioned just now, the full cooperation of the other state and territory police and also non-government organisations such as Child Wise who help us and alert us to issues that come to their notice. So there is a community effort here.

Talk Senator BARNETT—I can understand that, but the point is that you are creating your own threshold. You have set the threshold in light of the resources that you have—and I can understand that—but the threshold that many in the community are concerned about is the abuse of children, the sexualisation of children and the crimes that are being committed, but apparently we cannot catch all these offenders. That is the concern that I am expressing and I think many in the community have likewise.

Talk Mr Keelty—I would not want you to think that we are not adequately addressing this problem because of resource issues. The issue I raised about threshold is because such a large percentage of the internet has pornography content. One of the difficulties is discerning that pornography which would be considered adult pornography and that pornography which would be considered as child pornography and offensive to children and where we might have a chance of locating the victim. So it is a difficult area.

Talk Senator BARNETT—That is fine. Can you advise whether the New South Wales police have given you advice as to their course of action with the Bill Henson matter?

Talk Mr Keelty—I will.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Can you do that now? Can you advise the committee as to what the New South Wales police have done with respect to the Bill Henson issue and the course of action that they have taken over the weekend?

Talk Mr Keelty—That is a matter for the New South Wales police. It has been dealt with by the New South Wales police and I am entirely confident that they have that matter in hand.

Talk Senator BARNETT—My question is whether they have advised to you as to their course of action and whether they have made any references or referrals to you for action.

Talk Mr Keelty—To my knowledge, at this point in time, no. If that is not correct I will correct the record.

Prime Minister of Australia Interview 
Joint Press Conference with Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, 
Canberra 28 May 2008 

Subject: Bill Henson

JOURNALIST:PM, Cate Blanchett says you should retract your criticism of Bill Henson’s artwork. Will you be reassessing that harsh initial reaction that you had to it? 

PM:When I was asked the other day for my reaction, my personal reaction as a parent, to the photographs which were shown on television that morning, I gave my reaction. I don’t apologise for that reaction. I stand by that view. And I will not be changed on it. In terms of the other matters concerning the legal processes, that’s always been properly the independent province of the law. Quite apart from any personal view of any politician – me or anyone else. 

JOURNALIST:Do you agree with the Prime Minister on Bill Henson’s exhibition and do you think it’s a good look to have the vice squad raiding art galleries in Australia? 

GILLARD:I’m now concerned that you don’t read my radio transcripts, because if you did, you’d be aware that I was asked this question earlier in the week and certainly endorsed the Prime Minister’s view. 

JOURNALIST:(Inaudible) 

PM:Well, Mark, there are two questions here. One is our personal view. And I was asked the other day for my personal view as a parent about the photographs which were whacked up on the television screen. And I gave my reaction. I stand by that reaction. And don’t apologise for it, and won’t be changing it. There’s a second point here, which is the process, the independent processes of the law. As I said on the day, that’s a matter for the legal processes to unfold. It’s not a question of a politician having a particular view at a personal level which dictates the course of action of the law. The law is an independent beast and the laws governing these matters have preexisted us by a long, long time. And that will sort itself through. 

JOURNALIST:Malcolm Turnbull said this morning, he’s got a couple on his walls at home. Should he take them down? 

PM:I’m unaware of those remarks. My remarks were entirely based on the couple of photographs which I was shown on television. And as I said, were remarks based on my personal view as a parent. That is the question I was asked, I think, by Karl Stefanovic. 

JOURNALIST: What about as Prime Minister? 

PM:Well, I’m a parent, I’m a person and my views on the photographs I was shown haven’t changed. I am passionate about children having innocence in their childhood. And therefore, when I’m presented with those sorts of photographs, and asked for my personal view as a parent, I gave them. 

Now, on the question of the law and how that applies, that’s properly in the hands of independent processes completely removed from any politicians personal view. I stand by my personal view, stated before, and I don’t intend to change from it.

ARTS LAW CENTRE OF AUSTRALIA
www.artslaw.com.au
MEDIA RELEASE
28 May 2008

Bill Henson – have community standards changed?

According to Robyn Ayres, Executive Director of the Arts Law Centre of Australia, “it is very unlikely that either Bill Henson or Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery would be charged under section 91G or 91H or the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as neither the artist nor the gallery have demonstrated any intention to use a child for a pornographic purpose, or produce, disseminate or possess child pornography.”

Ms Ayres also stated that it would be difficult to successfully convict either the gallery or the artist under s578C of the Crimes Act, which creates the offence of publishing an indecent article.

The reason Arts Law believes it is unlikely that the artist or the gallery will be successfully convicted under s578C is that the section requires the court to take into account both artistic merit and contemporary community standards in determining whether the photographs are indecent. Previous cases state that contemporary community standards are “those currently accepted by the Australian community.” The courts look at what the community accepts and has accepted for years. They must also look at the context of the publication as well as the intended audience. What is indecent in one context may be acceptable in another.

Ms Ayres said “I would question whether contemporary community standards have changed to such a degree that the naked body is in itself indecent or pornographic. Any consideration of Bill Henson’s work should be made objectively, taking into account both the artistic merit and community standards. The fact that some viewers will sexualise images of children, however innocuous, raises the question whether all images of naked children should be criminalised? Such a conclusion would be a significant departure from the current standards which apply to both photography and the visual arts in Australia.”

Arts Law was established in 1983 and is the national community legal centre for the arts in Australia. Arts Law provides legal advice, publications, education and advocacy services each year to over 2500 Australian artists and arts organisations operating across the arts and entertainment industries. One of the issues Arts Law advises on is classification and censorship.

Bob Debus
Minister for home Affairs
29 May 2008
BILL HENSON PHOTOGRAPHS 

Several online images of Bill Henson photographs from media websites reporting on the exhibition at the Rosyln Oxley9 gallery in Sydney have been referred to the Classification Board for classification.

The images were referred to the Board by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) which investigates complaints concerning online content.

They do not involve content published online by the Oxley gallery as the gallery voluntarily removed images from its website last week.

The Classification Board does not classify art exhibitions but classifies some publications including pictures published on-line.

HELEN POLLEY 
Senator for Tasmania 
Press Release
29 MAY 2008 

PRE-SEXUALSATION OF CHILDREN 

“I was shocked yesterday to hear Malcolm Turnbull defend Bill Henson’s naked photographs”. 

‘What is the difference between these photographs and child pornography? Where will we draw the line? If we accept these photographs, it may open the floodgates to other more sinister pathways” 

“The Prime Minister has my full support in his comments that these photographs are revolting. “ 

“I am most concerned that as a society, girls are being pre-sexualised. Why are retailers selling pole dancing kids, padded bras and skimpy underwear for 5 year olds?” 

Young women are being barraged with hyper-sexualised messages that turn them into sex objects. This can have terrible effects on ones self esteem, leading to depression and anxiety. 

“The Australian Childhood foundation has commented that Childhood is “shrinking”, stating that we are exposing our children to adult concepts that they can’t manage and are developmentally inappropriate. Girls are told early their bodies aren’t good enough - they need continual upgrade and enhancement.” 

“We need to seriously rethink the way society is pre-sexualising young girls. I urge the young women of Australia to stop fixating on their so called flaws. In particular, I ask that mothers talk to their daughters about chasing the illusion of a so called perfect body.”

NSW Police
Media Release
Police await advice from DPP on photographs 
Friday, 30 May 2008 
05:08pm

The NSW Police Force has forwarded a brief of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions following an investigation into photographic images displayed at a Sydney art gallery.

Last week police seized a number of items from the Paddington gallery. In a subsequent investigation a range of information has been gathered and a number of statements obtained by police.

Central Metropolitan Region Commander Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn says NSWPF is now awaiting advice from the DPP regarding potential offences in relation to Create/Possess Child Pornography (Crimes Act 91H) and Display Indecent Image (Crimes Act 578C)

“This matter was handed to the DPP late this afternoon. NSWPF is seeking advice from the DPP as to whether there are sufficient grounds to prosecute under these provisions.”

NSWPF will not be making further comment on the matter until such advice is received.

Her article [Miranda Devine] and the ensuing shock-jock outrage on Sydney commercial radio caught the attention of the media spivs in the Iemma Government. For them, the Henson furore was a godsend.

Just 24 hours earlier, former Cabinet minister Milton Orkopoulos had been sentenced to 13 years’ jail for depraved s-x and drug offences involving minors. There were mounting questions about a political cover-up and the savage treatment of the whistleblower Gillian Sneddon.

Iemma, traveling in China, was informed of the Henson “angle”. Staff asked the premier to sign off on a Sydney-prepared rapid response note (RRN) describing the photographs as “offensive and disgusting”. Iemma authorised its immediate release.

Meanwhile, in the Brisbane headquarters of Bravehearts, the child assault action group, an email arrived at 12.46pm from “a member of the public” calling for action over the Henson exhibition.

Bravehearts founder and executive director Hetty Johnston told Crikey that the email and “a couple more concerned phone calls” prompted her to co-write and co-sign a letter to NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scippione and Arts Minister Frank Sartor and fax them off. (Yes, she had their numbers).

Her faxes had a galvanising impact on the police and the Iemma Government which, incidentally, partially funds Bravehearts in NSW.

Rose Bay police commander Allan Siccard said that at 3.30pm the station received a report “from a concerned member of the public” about the Henson exhibition. The cops arrived just over an hour later, threatened the gallery owners and the opening was postponed.

(How different was the treatment given to Gillian Sneddon, Orkopoulos's electorate secretary who phoned parliament in 2006 to tell them the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was under police investigation for pedophilia. Their response was to sack her!)

Next morning, 23 May, Johnston appeared on Channel Nine’s Today show to give an early morning start to her campaign against Henson and the gallery owners. Her views were already sensationalising the morning media:

It's child exploitation, it's criminal activity and it should be prosecuted, both the photographer Bill Henson ... but also the gallery because these are clearly images that are s-xually exploiting young children.

They are clearly illegal child p-rnography images, it's not about art at all, it's a crime and I hope they are prosecuted.

And for good measure, she later added: "I asked them (the police) to prosecute, both the gallery and the photographer, but I'd like to see the parents as well looked in to.”

'I was getting fodder for a radio talkback show," says Phil Sylvester of 2GB. Bill Henson's exhibition was opening that night and he was looking for someone who could come on air, urgently, and explain the difference between art and porn. Sylvester failed to find anyone - which says a lot about this story - but he did set off the greatest art scandal of the decade.

A listener's email had drawn his attention to that morning's spirited attack on the celebrity photographer by this paper's Miranda Devine. The listener also sent a link to the gallery's website. When Sylvester saw the dozen images of the two children - particularly a couple of "full frontals" of the girl - he realised he had a "fantastic topic" for Chris Smith, his boss at the microphone. "What's art and what's porn is one of the great subjects, and here it was again."

It was 1.30pm on Thursday, May 22. After being shunted around a couple of Federal Government agencies and getting no reply from the child protection advocate Hetty Johnston, Sylvester sent the email through to Tony Ritchie, an old mate who is now media adviser to the NSW Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione.

As soon as he opened the gallery website at about 2pm, Ritchie forwarded the email to the Sex Crime Squad. An investigation that might have happened any time - and calmly - in the past 20 years was suddenly under way in a rush. The Sex Crime Squad focused on the website; the small police station at Rose Bay was called in to deal with the pictures on the gallery wall.

The clock was against them. In four hours an influential bunch of Sydney citizens would be gathering at its most prestigious contemporary art gallery to applaud one of the nation's most famous artists. A police source told the Herald they predicted what lay ahead: "Everyone knew it was not going to be a pretty scene."

Sylvester never found his expert, but 2GB had the story all to itself that afternoon. Chris Smith urged his listeners to ring the gallery. They did. When Phil Clark took over the microphone at 4pm he, too, hammered the story. Devine came on air and called for the gallery's website to be taken down. Sometime after 5pm, Clark told his listeners that police, protesters and art lovers were outside the gallery and the opening had been shut down.

As press operations go, this was a spectacular success. From breakfast, when Devine's column was first read across Sydney - and ignored by the police - to the doleful appearance of Superintendent Allan Sicard at Roslyn Oxley9 that evening to announce "the exhibition will be temporarily closed to allow further inquiries to be made", less than 10 hours had passed.

Even before the Rose Bay police arrived, they were half-convinced the opening should be postponed. Sicard arrived at 4.30pm, and suggested they needed more security. He was worried about damage to the pictures. Henson said: "I'm worried about the people." In the end it was Henson who decided the opening should not go ahead that night. A notice was put on the door at 5pm and an hour later the images were removed from the gallery website.

Later that morning the gallery announced it was withdrawing a number of works from the exhibition. But still the police came. This time the squad was huge - about 20 officers in all from Rose Bay, the Child Protection and Sex Crimes squads - and their mood was very different from the night before. They were there to seize pictures.

Mark O'Brien, one of Sydney's toughest lawyers, who had been hired by the gallery and the artist, argued the pictures that concerned police could be stored and secured on the premises. Police refused. There was going to be a show.

They seized 12 pictures from the exhibition and another 20 from the storeroom - two of which were 25 years old. Gallery staff packed them in heavy boxes. From noon until after 4pm, television stations and press camped in the lane had evocative images of boxes being heaved into police vans to be carried off and locked safely where they still remain in Surry Hills police station.

Without the internet, none of this would have happened. Devine's criticisms of Henson had been made before. But now the images themselves - or a net approximation of the artist's work - could be transmitted instantly around the press, the police, the public and child protection advocates. Images from the net excited 2GB, the police commissioner's press secretary, the Prime Minister and Johnston.

She had never heard of Henson until alerted by emails and 2GB. "This would have happened a long time ago if I'd known," she told the Herald.

Her fax to the gallery, cc'd to the commissioner put the central claim of Henson's adversaries absolutely clearly: "Pictures portraying sexualised imagery of young girls can never be called art. It is child pornography, child exploitation and it is a crime."

Late last week the Classification Board swiftly assessed five Henson images taken from media websites and rated them all "G" or "very mild". Some or all of the images are partly censored with black bars covering nipples and genitals. The assessment followed a complaint about images on media websites after NSW police closed his Sydney exhibition on May 23. The main complaint is said to involve a slide show of seized photographs on The Daily Telegraph's website.

Last Thursday, the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, said images from media websites has been referred to the Classification Board. They were cleared the same day. An internet censorship expert Irene Graham told the Herald: "The fact that the Classification Board has become involved in this and then worked so quickly to reach its verdict is a sign of just how politically sensitive the Henson issue has become."

Responsibility for policing the net was given to the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2006. Since then, it has referred less than a dozen complaints to the Classification Board. The Henson complaint is the first to be cleared absolutely by the board, which is is expected to release a full report on each of the five images today.

The Classification Board has cleared five Bill Henson photographs of naked children, used in the past fortnight by mainstream news websites, for general release.

In the first Henson complaint to be dealt with officially, the board yesterday said the images were very mild in viewing impact and justified by context.

Most of the photographs were censored by the news organisations, with black bars obscuring the models' breasts and genitals in all but one. The fifth was out of focus.

Classification Board member Claire Bowdler says the use of the images on news websites is legitimate reportage and not sexualised in any way.

"They were presented on news media websites with context around them of perhaps reporting about the issue itself or there was other information on the page," she said.

"It's like looking at a whole media website and the photo was just a small part of that image at the one time.

"The board does not find that the images have been sexualised in the way they've been reproduced on these media website because of the context that they relate to reporting about this matter and also because any nudity in the photos has been obscured."

The board did not consider the original Henson photographs.

IT'S official. The picture of the naked girl that sparked the Bill Henson fuss is not pornography.

The sight of her on an invitation to the photographer's Sydney exhibition two weeks ago provoked shock and outrage, but the Classifications Board has now declared the picture "mild" and safe for many children.

Yesterday the Herald also learned that the Director of Public Prosecutions was on the verge of advising NSW police that any prosecution of Henson was unlikely to succeed. In Canberra, Federal Police also announced that no charges would be laid over photographs in the Australian National Gallery.

The Henson affair appears close to collapse.

Since then, Henson photographs have been removed from the walls of two regional NSW galleries and impounded at the National Gallery. Stacks of the invitation, along with copies of Art World, a new magazine containing Henson images, have also been seized by NSW police.

But the Classification Board, under its new chief, former ABC head Donald McDonald, is far less troubled by Henson's work. Earlier this week it cleared five images - four of them had been partly censored - and it has now given the young girl on the invitation a rating of PG.

The picture came to the board for classification when it was found in a blog discussing pornography and the sexualisation of children. The classifiers found the "image of breast nudity … creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context … and is not sexualised to any degree".

While a minority of the board thought the impact of the picture was "moderate", none of the classifiers called for any restriction on its display.

Kevin Rudd 
Interview with Jon Faine, ABC Radio 774 Melbourne
06 June 2008

Subject: Bill Henson

FAINE: Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, my guest. Jon Faine with you on 774 ABC Melbourne.

Bill Henson’s photographs now will not result in a prosecution according to the New South Wales DPP in news that has been announced this morning. It seems that nobody, now not even within the legal establishment, let alone in the arts, censorship or media world agrees with your judgemental stance, if I can call it that, Prime Minister, that those photos were disgusting.

PM: Jon, if I am on national television, I am shown for the first time a couple of those photographs, and I am asked what my view, what my personal view is as a parent, I am as entitled as any other Australian to put my point of view.

And I did. I don’t apologise for it. Haven’t changed it since. I also said in the same interview, that any legal processes associated with the treatment of these photographs and this material is completely independent of politicians. I have said that consistently since then. As it should be.

FAINE: The resultant lack of any police follow up or court prosecution suggests that this was an inglorious episode in the cultural discussions that this nation occasionally engages in Prime Minister.

PM: Jon –

FAINE: And you added some fuel to that fire.

PM: Well Jon if you are on national television, asked for your view as a parent in response to a particular piece of material, you can express a view or simply waive it through. I expressed a view, don’t apologise for it. But if we got to the stage where people can’t be asked their views on particular objects.

FAINE: That would be censorship, I am not a fan of that.

PM: What I am about to say is we are all entitled to express our point of view, even Prime Ministers and secondly, to say quite rightly that independent legal processes associated with the treatment of material such as this are completely independent of the individual views of politicians. And I have said that since then too. These two ideas, you know, can coexist.

Kevin Rudd
Interview with Lisa Wilkinson and Karl Stefanovic, Channel Nine Today Show, Canberra
06 June 2008

Subject: Bill Henson

WILKINSON: Well your stomach did turn two weeks ago on the show when you described the photos that Bill Henson took as revolting. Now the classification board has given them the all clear and it seems unlikely that charges will be laid.

Are our censors and police, aren't they supposed to reflect community standards, it sounds like they're not reflecting your standards?

PM: Well I think on your program, I think it was Karl who asked me the question, what my attitude was as a parent to those photographs and my reaction was very clear cut.

I've been asked many times since then have I changed my view and let me say on your program today I have not changed my view one bit. I also said on your program that when it comes to the independent processes of the law, they are completely separate from what any individual politician may think, feel or respond to by way of their own individual judgments.

And independent processes of the law are on foot, dealing with this and other matters and we should not interfere with that one bit whatsoever.

WILKINSON: But do you think the classification board got it wrong?

PM: You know something, organisations like that are at arm's length from politicians, it's a matter for those bodies independently including the legal authorities, to evaluate these matters and reach their own determination. We as individuals may have our own private views; the virtue of our democracy is that we can have that.

I said on this program what my views were as a parent. I don't budge from that. But I'm not able to go around and start dictating to the legal authorities what they should or shouldn't do. That's quite a separate matter.

They've always been independent. In fact that's what I said on your program from day one.

No prosecution on art works from Sydney Gallery 
NSW Police 
Media Release
Friday, 06 Jun 2008 01:46pm

Following advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the NSW Police Force believes there is no reasonable prospect of a successful conviction in relation to art works displayed at a Sydney gallery last month.

NSW Police have received legal advice from the DPP on more than 20 works which had been displayed at a gallery in Hampden St, Paddington.

Central Metropolitan Region Commander Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn says police were obliged to investigate the works following complaints from the public.

“Police did receive complaints and this has been a matter of significant public concern and debate. This is a complex area of law.”

“Matters involving the law and art are notoriously difficult and that is why police sought this advice.

“We looked at the possibility of breaches of the Crimes Act. The advice given to us is that a successful prosecution was unlikely.”

“It is the role of the police to respond to community concerns and investigate complaints,” Asst/Com Catherine Burn said.

The art works will be returned to the gallery subject to the appropriate arrangements with representatives from the gallery.

Hetty Johnston’s Crikey piece on Monday about the need to subordinate artistic freedom to human rights provides a new perspective on Johnston’s own decision to accept support from the adult entertainment industry in 2004.

Johnston (who didn’t return Crikey’s call before deadline) accepted donations from adult industry companies Club X, Adultshop and Gallery totalling more than $4,000 for her Senate campaign in the 2004 election. Johnston attracted 0.18% of first preference votes in Queensland.

Eros Association head Fiona Patten said that, while disagreeing with Johnston over the Henson issue, the industry still supported her campaign against child abuse. Mal Day, head of Adultshop.com, also said that he continued to support Bravehearts. Day, who has been active in pushing the debate over the relationship between art and p-rnography for some years in Perth where he is based, agreed there was a tension between Johnston’s views on the Henson issue and those of the adult industry.

Johnston’s arguments against the work of Bill Henson are equally used by those who regarded p-rnography as exploitative of women. The adult entertainment industry, in all its forms, has been resisting such arguments, and the censorship that inevitably flows from them, for decades.

Art Censorship Public Forum at the MCA 
Media Release: 6th June 2008

 ‘Art Censorship: the Bigger Picture’ is the title of a public forum to be held on 12th June in Sydney. In the interests of stimulating some informed and thoughtful public debate, a group of highly respected speakers will take a measured look at the topic in light of the furore surrounding recent censorship of the work of well-known artist Bill Henson.

The forum is co-convened by Watch on Censorship a community organisation with the goal of protecting and promoting the rights of adult Australians to freedom of speech and expression in all media, and the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA), the peak body representing and advancing the professional interests of the Australian visual arts, craft and design sector. The event is also proudly sponsored by Frankel Lawyers: arts, media and entertainment.

The forum will run from 6.00pm to 8.00pm on Thursday 12th June 2008, at the Foundation Hall, Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. The evening’s proceedings will be introduced by Margaret Pomeranz, ABC TV film critic and President of Watch on Censorship. The discussions will be chaired by David Marr, lawyer, writer and journalist and Vice President of Watch on Censorship.

Panel Speakers Ian Howard is an artist, Dean of the College of Fine Arts, University of NSW and Chair of the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA). He will provide an artist’s perspective about his experience in testing the boundaries in relation to militarism and national security, self censorship, and the vagaries of audience interpretation.

Tony Bond, is the Assistant Director of the Art Gallery of NSW and Head Curator International. He will offer the gallery perspective on art censorship discussing galleries as ‘special’ places, curatorial decision making, tools used to deal with the risk of sensationalisation of sensitive subject matter, and dealing with complaints and threats.

Hetty Johnston, is Executive Director and founder of Bravehearts Inc. which aims to engender child sexual assault prevention and protection strategies, advocate for understanding, promote increased education and research, and provide healing and support. Ms Johnston will give her views on the boundaries of public tolerance in relation to art and protection of the child.

Julian Burnside QC, is a barrister, writer and President of Liberty Victoria, has acted pro bono in many human rights cases and is passionate about the arts. He will elaborate the law in relation to art censorship and how it is exercised, including the complexities of ‘intention’, ‘context’, ‘reasonableness’, public attitudes, protecting human rights & freedom of expression.

Clive Hamilton, is a prolific writer and public commentator and immediate past Executive Director of The Australia Institute. He will comment on community standards, public moral codes, and limits to freedom of expression.

NOT everyone has thrown in the towel. NSW police admitted yesterday afternoon that Bill Henson could not be charged. "But we're not going to let it go," declared the campaigner Hetty Johnston. "If the law is so pathetic it can't protect our children it needs to change."

Outside the police station where his pictures remain under lock and key, Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn told the media: "Today we received advice that indicates that there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction relating to the artworks. Based on that advice, we will not be proceeding to prosecution."

She insisted the case was complex, very complex. Art and law make a difficult mix. The pictures had to be seized. They were evidence. "I believe police have acted appropriately," she said.

"We investigated complaints and that is our job." How many complaints? "Three."

Ms Johnston warned her child protection organisation, Bravehearts, would now be lobbying for legislative change. "It's an absolute disgrace," she said. "I think we've become the laughing stock around the globe."

The Premier, Morris Iemma, told the Herald: "The police deserve our thanks for their investigate work. My personal opinion remains clear - these photographs crossed the line and were inappropriate. I can't understand how a parent could allow a child to be photographed in this way." 

Art Monthly Australia Issue 211

Art Monthly Australia Issue 211
Editorial - compiled by Maurice O'Riordan 

To dream a child

Melbourne artist Polixeni Papapetrou, the artist of this month’s cover image, has also borne her share of censorship and moral outrage, particularly with the nude photographs of her daughter Olympia. ‘My criminality appears to rest on the notion that art has somehow supplanted my maternal duty’, she said earlier this year in an interview with Australian Centre of Photography Director Alasdair Foster. The transgression of the artist-mother – especially one who dares to ‘implicate’ her own child in the process – can cut deeper than any questions surrounding the male gaze as a domain for art and exploitation.

The choice of Papapetrou’s Olympia as Lewis Carroll’s Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs (2003) for our cover may be seen as controversial but is made in the hope of restoring some dignity to the debate; to validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art; to surrender to the power of the imagination (in children and adults) and dialogue without crippling them through fear-mongering and repression.

There is, admittedly, a fair amount concerning sex and sexuality in this issue, apart from discussions of Henson’s work (and at the risk, perhaps, of distorting the nudity in Papapetrou’s image): from the celebrations of women in the work of Japanese photographer Nobuyoshi Araki and Australian painter David Laity (who have both sparked controversy and divided their audiences) to the subject of Queer perspectives in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 30th anniversary exhibition Bent Western, and the critical ‘excavation’ of one of its artists, the late Arthur McIntyre. As Donald Brook argues, it should never be a question of art or pornography, but rather: ‘Should works of art enjoy a general indulgence, recognised in law, so that even culpably pornographic works of art like those on the walls of brothels in Pompeii may sometimes be tolerated?’ The past few weeks in Australia have certainly exposed just how timid and intolerant our society seems to have become, even while Henson is now free to show his work. The obvious parallels, in the extreme, are suggested by this issue’s inclusion of German painter Otto Dix, one of the Nazi’s ‘Degenerate’ artists, alongside Melbourne artist Sam Leach’s ‘self-portrait as a Nazi’, Self in Uniform (2007).

Yours (perchance to sleep) Maurice

The NSW Government will refer a magazine featuring a naked child on the cover to the Australian Classification Board. Art Monthly Australia magazine sparked fresh controversy over naked images of children by publishing an image of a six-year-old girl on its cover to protest against the recent furore over similar pictures by artist Bill Henson.

NSW community services minister Kevin Greene said the images had been inappropriately hijacked for political mileage.

"I will refer this to the ACB tomorrow, and the community also should let (the Board) know what they think," Mr Greene told reporters in Sydney.

Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell labelled the publication a "provocative publicity stunt" and called for a review of Arts Council's funding for the magazine.

He said the average parent faced strict regulation of photographing their children at school events, and would be frustrated by the actions of the magazine.

"I understand they are in receipt of funding from the Arts Council and I assume there are procedures where that can be reviewed by Mr Rudd and his ministers," Mr O'Farrell said.

"I notice (Premier) Morris Iemma hasn't ruled them out receiving state government funds in the future.

"The public are furious about the double standards, I think taxpayers are angry when they see funds used in this way and to review it, I think, would be sensible."

Kevin Rudd 
Transcript of Interview With Barrie Cassidy, ABC Insiders, ABC TV, Canberra
06 July 2008

CASSIDY: Just finally on top of the Bill Henson controversy, a taxpayer supported magazine has put a naked 6 year old girl this time on its cover, Art Monthly Australia. The editor said that he did it to restore some dignity to the debate, is that what it does?

PM: If you asking my personal view Barrie, no it doesn't and it does the reverse. My view hasn't changed on this. We are talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way. I have very deep, strong personal views on this which is that we should be on about maximising the protection of children. I don't think this is a step in the right direction at all.

CASSIDY: And it does seem to be a deliberately provocative act aimed directly at you?

PM: Who knows what the motivation is, but I’ve got to say my interest and the interest of many Australians. I think most Australians, is to protect little children and restore innocence to kids childhood. But I go back to the fundamental question: how can anyone assume that a little child of 6 years old, 8, 10, 12, somehow is able to make that decision for themselves? I mean, I don't think they can. That's just my view, and that's why frankly, I can't stand this stuff.

Kevin Rudd Interview
Transcript of Doorstop, Fairbairn RAAF Base, Canberra
08 July 2008

JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Art Monthly, says she is offended by your comments. Is she too young to know the real issues here?

PM: As I said the other day. My attitude to this has not changed one bit. And that is, the protection of children and the innocence of children is of fundamental importance. Secondly, if people want to make a political point in opposition to me, I don’t think it is right they use under age children to make that point.

They can engage the political debate as much as they want, it is a free country. But when it comes to the protection of children, I say that should be a foremost responsibility for each of us and I add this: How can you credibly expect a six year old girl to have made their own independent decision about this matter in the beginning.

I go back to my point, we have a view about what constitutes, you know, a responsible time for people to take decisions for themselves. Children, I don’t think fit within that category.

The board reviewed the entire July edition of the magazine and yesterday, in a split decision, gave it an M rating. It means the magazine is not recommended for readers under 15.

"The board notes that the images in this publication have been classified unrestricted within the specific context of the publication as a bona fide and serious vehicle for the discussion of the arts," a spokeswoman said.

"The overall tone of the publication and the debate contained therein is considered to be serious and have genuine artistic and educational merit.

"The board notes that the images and text within the publication that relate to the ongoing debate about the difference between art and pornography and the sexualisation of children require a mature perspective."

A minority on the board wanted to give the magazine a refused classification, meaning it would not be able to be sold, the spokeswoman said.

But that minority were split over what images, both on the cover, and inside, deserved the rating.

There were other graphic images within the magazine.