UPDATES: 23rd December 2008
F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN: Dropped to MA15+ 
GTA IV: MA15+ uncut
Hentai Censorship: MEIKING
Banned and Censored Porn DVD's
Censored MANPLAY 37: Banned Again
AUSTRALIAN ROSIE ROAD TRIPS #2: Banned in Australia
Bruce La Bruce and the censors
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and FEARLESS Ratings
Censor Flashback: THE DISTURBANCE & STAGE FRIGHT

UPDATES: 30th November 2008
F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN: Banned in Australia 
The Australian Sex Party: Censorship Policies
MANPLAY 37: Banned in Australia
Shell/Coles Express and BP Australia drop porn
Internet Censorship: Opposition Grows
New Releases and New Ratings
Censored SPIDER-MAN still to violent
THE VAMPIRE LOVERS: Uncut at last?
Censor Flashback: Paul Naschy

UPDATES: 16th November 2008
Games R18+: It's back on!
HOOLIGANS: STORM OVER EUROPE: Confiscated by Customs
FALLOUT 3 (MA15+) vs. DARK SECTOR (RC)
Internet Censorship: Questions in the Senate
KILLING ME SOFTLY: Rated Unrestricted 
Porn DVD's. One banned, Two Censored
CHICKS GONE WILD 2: Banned in Australia
PUSSY SWEAT: Censored in Australia
EDEN: Censored in Australia
Eros Magazine Vol.9 No.4.
OPEN SEASON 2: Challenge Fails to PG Rating

UPDATES: 2nd November 2008
DEAD SPACE: Two MA15+ ratings
Senate Estimates: Conroy Questioned on Internet Filtering
Censored and Banned Porn DVD's
AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #3: Censored in Australia
DOUBLE VISION 2: Censored in Australia
KILLER GRIP #4: Banned in Australia
R18+ for games: The saga continues...
Senate Estimates: Porn Mags, Art Monthly, and Games R18+

Australian Censorship News  
23rd December 2008

F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN: Dropped to MA15+ 

Finally we have some good news to finish the year. As reported in the last update, excessive violence had seen the Warner Bros game F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN banned by the Classification Board. Now an appeal to the Review Board has seen the ban reversed and it rated MA15+ (Strong violence, blood and gore. Moderate coarse language). This is the first successful appeal to the Review Board for a game since SILVERBALL was dropped from RC to M15+ in November 2003.

******

GTA IV: MA15+ uncut

It looks like Rockstar were being overly cautious when they pre-cut the Australian version of GRAND THEFT AUTO IV before presenting it to the censors. This modified version was awarded an MA15+ (Strong violence, Strong coarse language, Drug and sexual references) rating back in December 2007. Following much rumour Rockstar did eventually come clean and admit the game had been cut when it was released in April.

Rockstar obviously came to the conclusion that they had over reacted because when it came time to get the PC version rated they submitted the uncut game. This was rated MA15+ (Strong violence, sex scenes, coarse language and drug references) on November 8th.

This is a case of the unseen censorship that commonly happens with hardcore DVD's rated X18+. Many are pre-cut before submission, and the public are kept in the dark. The Classification Board's database lists these as 'Original Versions' because they have never been previously rated. Had GTA IV not been such a high profile title then the censorship may have gone unnoticed.

******

Hentai Censorship: MEIKING

Geoff has been busy working his way through Siren's Hentai collection and has again discovered censorship in two more discs. Four episodes of MEIKING were rated R18+ in June and July 2007 and Geoff believes episodes two and three are missing footage. This ties in very nicely with the previous news regarding GRAND THEFT AUTO IV. As mentioned, adult distributors routinely pre-censor titles before getting them rated, now it looks like Siren have been doing the same thing with their hentai DVDs. We know that THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, BONDAGE MANSION, and now the MEIKING discs were pre-cut. Here is the full list of hentai DVDs rated by the Classification Board. If you have details of any more censorship then please send it in.

* Denotes that they have a separate database entry on this site

******

Banned and Censored Porn DVD's

MANPLAY 37: DON'T ASK / DON'T TELL and THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE ROAD TRIPS #2 are the two most recent porn titles to be banned by the censor.

Censored MANPLAY 37: Banned Again

In the last update we reported that Calvista had just had the gay porn DVD MANPLAY 37: DON'T ASK / DON'T TELL banned by the censors. Their attempts to remove the offending material have come to nothing with the confirmation of a second RC rating on December 12th.

AUSTRALIAN ROSIE ROAD TRIPS #2: Banned in Australia

Also banned is THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE ROAD TRIPS #2. This caps a bad year for FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd who also lost parts two and three of THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA to the censors. Both were subsequently modified and awarded X18+ ratings which is the most likely course of action for ROAD TRIPS #2

******

Bruce La Bruce and the censors

Beyond Home Entertainment have recently released three of Bruce La Bruce's censor baiting titles from the 1990's.

First up is his 1991 feature NO SKIN OFF MY ARSE. Kojo Pictures had this rated R18+ (High level sex scenes) in September 2008. The cover claims that it was:

Previously banned in Australia where it was originally granted an X certificate.

While the website of Beyond Home Entertainment list it as:

PREVIOUSLY BANNED – FIRST RELEASE IN AUSTRALIA EVER!

The censor's database from this period is far from complete, so we have no easy way of confirming if this is true. The September 2008 entry does not list it as a 'revised version' (previously submitted) so we would guess that the R18+ is its first rating. It is most likely that Beyond Home Entertainment is merely drumming up some publicity with the 'Previously Banned' tag.

We do know that back in 1996 Potential Films received an X18+ rating for his 1995 feature, SUPER 8 1/2. 

Now it has now slipped through with a reduced R18+ (High level sexual themes) rating. It was not until the ROMANCE controversy of 2000 that actual sex was allowed to appear in R18+ films. This is the reason the reason that Kojo Pictures have been able to now get SUPER 8 1/2 through with a lower R18+. 

10:96: SUPER 8 1/2 - A CAUTIONARY BIO-PIC Film (Videotape) Classification X18+ (Contains sexually explicit material) 
11/08: SUPER 8 1/2 - A CAUTIONARY BIO-PIC Film (DVD) Classification R18+ 

Beyond Home Entertainment are also promoting this as:

PREVIOUSLY BANNED – FIRST RELEASE IN AUSTRALIA EVER!

As we have outlined, this has never been banned, but until recently held an X18+ rating. However we will give Beyond Home Entertainment some creative license as you could argue that the X18+ banned it from being sold or rented within any of the States. 

Can anyone confirm if the X18+ version was ever released on VHS?

Finally we have Bruce La Bruce's most famous (in Australia at least) film HUSTLER WHITE. This caused something of a storm when the censors banned it back in 1997. Potential Films eventually removed the problem material and the film went on to have a censored R-rated theatrical and video release.  Violence in X18+ is not allowed, so unlike SUPER 8 1/2 there was no option of a higher rating due to the scene where a client gets cut on the buttocks by a razor blade.

******

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and FEARLESS Ratings

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and FEARLESS are two recent titles that have gone before the Classification Board for another time. The former has seen its consumer advice strengthened, whilst the latter has had its rating increased from M to MA15+.

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL: New Consumer Advice

Holding on to its MA15+ rating, but suffering an increase in consumer advice is Curtis Hanson's L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. The original 'Medium Level Violence' has now been upped to 'Strong violence and coarse language'.

08/97: L.A. CONFIDENTIAL Film (35 mm) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence)
10/98: L.A. CONFIDENTIAL Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence)
10/08: L.A. CONFIDENTIAL SPECIAL EDITION Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Strong violence and coarse language)

FEARLESS: M increased to MA15+

Back in 2006 the 104 minute version of Jet Li's FEARLESS was rated M by the Classification Board. Now the 140 minute Director's Cut is set for release following. The extra 36 minutes of footage have resulted in the Classification Board increasing the rating to MA15+. A full description of the differences can be found at schnittberichte.com.

06/06: FEARLESS Film (35 mm) Classification M (Moderate violence)
11/08: FEARLESS - DIRECTOR'S CUT Film (Blu-Ray) Classification MA15+ (Strong violence)

******

Censor Flashback: THE DISTURBANCE & STAGE FRIGHT

Matt has sent in a review of another title that previously ran in problems with the censors. Cliff Guest's THE DISTURBANCE was banned back in 1992, and has never seen any kind of Australian release.

Meanwhile, Peter has sent in details of the old CIC Video release of Michele Soavi's STAGE FRIGHT. This should have been released uncut, so it is unclear why we got a censored print.

Update 23rd December 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News 
30th November 2008

F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN: Banned in Australia 

It is official, 2008 has been the worst year yet for games being banned by the censors. The latest victim is F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN, the fifth game that the Classification Board have refused this year. It joins an ever growing list of titles that the Australian public are being denied from playing either at all, or in their uncut form.

By now we all know the main reason why we don't have an R-rating for games. Earlier in the week the GOOD GAME show on ABC2 interviewed the roadblock. You can view the segment here, and get to watch him play his Wii.

******

The Australian Sex Party: Censorship Policies

The Australian censorship situation is becoming all too predictable. Take a look at this update and you have the usual reports of banned games (F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN) and banned porn (MANPLAY 37). We also have updates to the news that the tentacles of censorship are moving into the internet, and Adult magazines. It's all rather depressing! 

Just launched at the Melbourne Sexpo was the Australian Sex Party. For those of us anti-censorship types their policies certainly seem interesting. They include:

To bring about the establishment of a truly national classification scheme which includes a uniform non-violent erotica rating for explicit adult material for all jurisdictions and through all media including the Internet and computer games. 

To overturn mandatory ISP filtering of the Internet and return Internet censorship to parents and individual.

Take a look at their site and policies, and if you like what you see join up!

***

David Barnett looked at the prospects for Australia's newest party in this article for the Canberra Times.

Powerful sex drive in party desires Canberra Times 20.11.08

Minor parties get elected to the Senate on the flow-on of votes from the Labor, Liberal and National parties, because Labor and the Coalition are in agreement that their mutual antipathy over-rides all issues of policy and principle.

So the Australian Sex Party is asking voters to give it their first preference for the Senate and to vote the ticket of its preferred party in the House. The quota of votes needed to get a senator elected is about 34,000 in the ACT, 37,000 in Tasmania, 600,000 in NSW and 460,000 in Victoria.

It looks like a big ask, but Barack Obama has just demonstrated how far you can go with the internet. There are about 1000 shops selling sex toys and videos in Australia which will function as party branches, and if those four million customers for X-rated DVDs decide they do not wish to be branded as dishonourable and disgusting by a government they have elected and give their first preferences to the Australian Sex Party, the result could be surprising.

In the Senate now, Labor has 32 senators, the Coalition 37, the Greens five and there are two independents.

Where the Greens purport to be tree-huggers, but in reality have a wide-ranging left-wing agenda, the Australian Sex Party is narrowly focused on sex and censorship and open government. It would be painless for either Coalition or Labor voters should they agree with their goals to give them a first preference, and then move to the ticket of a major party.

***

They must be doing something right as the have already scored one thousand members, and annoyed some Christians in the process. 

Aussie Sex Party reaches over 1,000 members livenews.com.au 22.11.08

Convenor Fiona Patten said although she knew there would be a significant amount of interest in the political party, the numbers so far had taken her by surprise.

"People are sick of not being treated like adults when it comes to issues involving censorship and personal choices, and they're certainly sick of living in a nanny state, where religious minorities are influencing the agenda," she said.

***

Australian Christian Lobby
Media Release
20th November 2008

Major Parties Challenged to Put Sex Party Last on How-to-Vote Cards

Major parties should ensure the Australian Sex Party is placed last on how-to-vote cards in upcoming State and Federal elections, according to the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

"Labor and Liberal should not be gaining political advantage from a party which exists to represent the interests of those who make money from the exploitation and degradation of women," ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace said today.

"Pornography and prostitution do enormous damage to women and children and the idea of mainstream political parties giving this trade seats in our nation's parliaments through preference deals, would offend the sensibilities of most Australians who believe women should be respected.

"Pauline Hanson was rightly put last on how-to-vote cards because of her inappropriate views on race. How much more should the Australian Sex Party be treated in the same way for its inappropriate views about women?"

Mr Wallace said one of the Sex Party's key policies was opposing Labor's internet filtering plans which are designed to thwart paedophilia on the internet and to protect children from illegal and hard-core material.

"A party which gives solace to the purveyors of internet porn is not one worthy of consideration for preference deals in the mainstream political process," Mr Wallace said.

"The Sex Party has stated it will be targeting seats in State Upper Houses and the Senate where preference deals are crucial to the success of minor parties.

"For the Sex Party to claim it fears a 'new wowserism' in a day and age where our society is saturated by sexual imagery is ridiculous.

"Most parents are concerned about the amount of sexual material their children are exposed to through television and outdoor advertising. The last thing we need in Parliament is a Sex Party pushing for governments to put more sex in ours' and our children's faces.

"The Australian Sex Party should be put last by every party, but certainly by Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, and ACL hopes each will quickly confirm their intention to do so," Mr Wallace said.

******

MANPLAY 37: Banned in Australia

Calvista have just had the gay porn DVD MANPLAY 37: DON'T ASK / DON'T TELL banned by the censors. This 2008 production from Titan Media was Refused Classification on November 26th.

******

Shell/Coles Express and BP Australia drop porn

Earlier in the month we reported on Barnaby Joyce's questions in Senate Estimates regarding the availability of porn magazines in petrol stations. The questions were prompted by a group called Kids Free 2B Kids who released this press release in September.

Kids Free 2B Kids 
Media Release
17th of September 2008, 2:11 pm

Milk Bars Peddle Porn 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL MUST ACT ON CORNER STORE MAGS THAT ENCOURAGE SEX WITH MINORS

Australia’s Classification Board has approved the sale of R-rated magazines which encourage s-x with under-age young girls, according to the Kids Free 2B Kids organisation.

Director Julie Gale said the magazines are being openly sold in milk bars, petrol stations and convenience stores and portray girls who look under-age performing s-xual acts.

Ms Gale said the “Guidelines used by the Classification Board, state that when a magazine is rated R category 1 - ‘actual s-xual activity may not be shown in realistic depiction’, but the girls in these magazines are depicted performing graphic s-xual acts including digital, oral, v-ginal and an-l sex.”

According to Ms Gale “these magazines should be Refused Classification (RC) as the guidelines also state that RC applies if images ‘Describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be (underline added), a child under 18 - whether the person is engaged in a s-xual activity or not.’ “

Ms Gale said the young women appear underage and are often posed in pigtails, plaits, school uniform, pink headbands and with soft cuddly toys.

‘The magazines approved for sale encourage the s-xual penetration of under- age girls and some of the video/dvd advertisements validate crimes such as incest and rape,” Ms Gale said. “I have complained to the Board and am not satisfied with the response. I have requested that the Victorian Attorney General has the matter reviewed at a Federal level”.

Barnaby Joyce takes up the fight in Senate Estimates

On October 20th, Barnaby Joyce's questioned the Classification Board on the exact same subject. The full text of the Senate Estimates hearing can be found here.

BP Australia runs scared

Last weekend saw the Kids Free 2B Kids claim its first scalp with BP Australia rolling over and agreeing to drop porn magazines from their stores.

Kids Free 2B Kids 
Media Release
20th of November 2008, 5:44 pm
BP removes p-rn from shelves. 

Julie Gale Director of Kids Free 2B Kids writes:

KF2BK congratulates BP Australia on its decision to remove category 1 R-rated magazines from their stores.

Excerpt from BP letter:

"...we have decided to remove all R-rated materials at all company owned and operated stores. This decision was taken on the basis that we were not comfortable with the titles of some of the range nor did we feel the material was consistent with our company's values.

Whilst our 250 company owned and operated stores are our largest and busiest stores, we have brand/wholesale agreements in place at around a further 1150 stores across the country where we do not directly control what is ranged for sale. However we are in the process of making contact with all these sites to make them aware of BP's clear stance on the sale of R-rated magazines and strongly encourage them to review their own ranging."

This is very good news and we hope that Shell/Coles and other petrol stations, convenience stores and milk bars follow. The sale of p-rnographic magazines that incite s-x with minors is utterly unacceptable.

The important message is that speaking out does make a difference!

BP scraps porn magazine sales from service stations news.com.au 21.11.08

PETROL giant BP has removed porn magazines with an R-rating from 250 stores nationwide, it was revealed yesterday.

The move, which was welcomed by women's groups, will ensure that publications given a Category 1-restricted classification will no longer be available at the outlets.

Although the titles have been deemed inappropriate by the organisation, it can only lobby for their removal from a further 1150 nationwide stores that it has a co-branding arrangement with.

"Eighteen months ago, we sealed both the M- and R-rated material and some of it was sealed in an opaque cover so you could only see the title," BP spokesman Gavin Jackman said.

Outlets that were not owned by BP but carried the name were made aware of the development.

Shell/Coles Express follow BP

A week later Shell/Coles Express followed BP and removed porn magazines from their shelves. 

Kids Free 2B Kids 
Media Release
26th of November 2008, 12:39 pm
Shell/Coles Express says no more p-rn with petrol

Kids Free 2B Kids congratulates Shell/Coles Express for removing Category 1 R-rated p-rn magazines from its nationwide outlets, following the same move by BP last week.

Kids Free 2B Kids has investigated and exposed the availability of porn promoting sex with young girls, rape and incest, via convenience stores, petrol stations and milk bars, over the past two months.

Director Julie Gale said that many of the magazines depicted young girls who appeared to be under 18 or were dressed to look younger, in accessories such as pink headbands, pigtails, school uniforms, braces and soft cuddly toys. Many magazines also depicted graphic sex acts, which are not permitted in Category 1 under the classification guidelines.

"This is an abhorrent genre of p-rn and producing and selling these magazines promotes and validates child sexual abuse," Ms Gale said.

Captions such as ‘Tender Teenage Tw-t', ‘C-m on my Braces', ‘C-m Hungry Virgins,' ‘Freshest Teen Sl-ts' and ‘F-ckable Flatties Special' appear on magazines such as ‘Live Young Girls', ‘Teen Angels', ‘Barely Legal', ‘Finally Legal' and ‘Petite'.

"Shell/Coles Express and BP have both made appropriate and responsible decisions given the content of the material. It is a welcome change to see such action, and I urge convenience stores and milk bars to follow their lead." Ms Gale said.

The issue has been highlighted by Kids Free 2B Kids and Melinda Tankard Reist of Women's Forum Australia and was also raised in recent Senate Estimates.

"The Federal classification system and its State and Territory enforcement arms need an overhaul. They are not working," Ms Gale said.

Who is next?

The puritans at Kids Free 2B Kids make it clear that their next target will be convenience stores such as 7-Eleven. Hopefully they will not prove as gutless as Shell/Coles Express and BP Australia. 

The other group involved in this campaign is the Australian Women's Forum. 3AW's Neil Mitchell interviewed Melinda Tankard Reist, from the group following the BP ban. 

******

Internet Censorship: Opposition Grows

As we have previously reported the Senator Scott Ludlam from the Greens has been doing a great in questioning Conroy regarding his planned internet censorship policy. Now the Liberal's Senator Nick Minchin has spoken out against the plan, saying that the:

"... Opposition firmly believes that adult supervision, supported by optional user-end filters, effective law enforcement and education should be front and centre of any efforts to keep children safe online,” 

Scott Ludlam and the Liberal MP Stuart Robert have also put questions on notice to Conroy asking for some straight answers.

This is an encouraging development because without the support of the coalition opposition, the Government will need the support of the five Greens, Nick Xenophon, and Steve Fielding to get draft laws through parliament.

Nick Xenophon vote is unclear, though he has made several pro-censorship comments over the years. 

The Government's internet censorship policy is nothing more than an attempt to curry favour with the religious nut Steve Fielding, so we all know where his vote will be going.

Anti-internet censorship sites seem to be increasing by the week. We've added several more to the links page, including last week's entry into the debate by GetUp. 

******

New Releases and New Ratings

THE MAN FROM HONG KONG, BATMAN BEGINS, COOL HAND LUKE, and AMERICAN PSYCHO are four titles that have been back before the Classification Board during the past few months. Three of them had the strength of their consumer advice increased, whilst one saw its thirty-four year old R-rating finally dropped.

THE MAN FROM HONG KONG: R18+ dropped to MA15+

Back in the 70's THE MAN FROM HONG KONG was one of the most famous Aussie R-rated films. It was something of a surprise when in 2001 a resubmission by Screen Sound Australia resulted in the same R18+ rating. Seven years on and the Classification Board have finally seen sense and dropped the rating to MA15+.

06/01: THE MAN FROM HONG KONG Film (VHS) Classification R18+ (Medium level violence)
10/08: THE MAN FROM HONG KONG Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Strong action violence)

BATMAN BEGINS: New consumer advice

Next up is Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS. Back in 2005 this was awarded an M (Moderate violence, Moderate themes) rating by the Classification Board. The recent Blu-Ray re-release has seen the consumer advice toughened up to M (Frequent action violence and themes)

05/05 BATMAN BEGINS Film (35 mm) Classification M (Moderate violence, Moderate themes) 
07/08: BATMAN BEGINS Film (Blu-Ray) Classification M (Frequent action violence and themes)

COOL HAND LUKE: New Consumer Advice

Another title that has had its consumer advice changed is COOL HAND LUKE. In the space of four years it has gone from 'Medium Level Violence' to just plain 'Violence'.

04/04: COOL HAND LUKE Film (DVD) Classification M (Medium level violence)
08/08: COOL HAND LUKE DELUXE EDITION Film (DVD) Classification M (Violence)

AMERICAN PSYCHO: New Consumer Advice

Also now sporting increased consumer advice is AMERICAN PSYCHO. Its theatrical release back in 2000 had a warning of 'Medium level violence, Medium level sex scenes'. This has now been increased to 'High level violence and sex scenes'. Both versions have R18+ ratings.

05/00: AMERICAN PSYCHO Film (35 mm) Classification R18+ (Medium level violence, Medium level sex scenes) 
09/08: AMERICAN PSYCHO Film (DVD for Blu-Ray) Classification R18+ (High level violence and sex scenes) 

Back in 1991 the Brett Easton Ellis's book of AMERICAN PSYCHO created some controversy in Australia. This saw Picador, the publisher submit it to the Classification Board who awarded it a Category 1 rating.

******

Censored SPIDER-MAN still to violent

A censored screening of Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN on C9 Adelaide has fallen foul of the ACMA. Originally rated M (Medium Level Violence) back in 2002, it was cut down to what the station incorrectly believed to be PG.

Australian Government
Australian Communications and Media Authority
media release 147/2008
24th November 2008

Spider-man film was incorrectly classified PG

The Australian Communications and Media Authority will require the Nine Network and affiliate licensees to ensure films are correctly classified after finding that the film Spider-man, broadcast by NWS Adelaide, was incorrectly classified PG (Parental Guidance Recommended), rather than M (Mature).

After investigating an unresolved complaint, ACMA found that the licensee of NWS Adelaide, Channel Nine South Australia, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the code), due to violence contained in the film. The licensee is part of the WIN Corporation and is an affiliate of the Nine Network.

Films broadcast on commercial television are classified according to the Guidelines for Classification of Films and Computer Games (the guidelines). For PG-classified films these guidelines state that, ‘violence should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.’

‘While the code allows licensees to modify films for broadcast, licensees must ensure that films are modified in accordance with the guidelines to guarantee that they are suitable for broadcast at particular times,’ said Lyn Maddock, Acting ACMA Chair.

ACMA found that the Spider-man film contained frequent scenes of violence. It also found that the film contained a depiction of violence that was stronger than mild.

Originally classified M by the Classification Board for theatrical release, the film was modified by the licensee for broadcast as PG. However ACMA concluded that the film was not correctly modified from its original M classification and should have been broadcast in the later M time zone with the corresponding M classification.

ACMA is discussing remedial action in relation to classification with the Nine Network, which provided and classified the film, as well as with the WIN Television licensee that broadcast the film.

Investigation report 2041 is available on the ACMA website.

******

THE VAMPIRE LOVERS: Uncut at last?

Last months DVD release of Hammer's THE VAMPIRE LOVERS prompted an e-mail from a reader questioning what version we would see released. We've now prepared a database entry showing that it has never been seen in its complete form in Australia. This is more of a case of lazy distributors than the work of our censors.

******

Censor Flashback: Paul Naschy

The often stated main aim of this site is to provide a detailed look at the history of Australian film censorship. The database is continually growing with facts and new titles, most of which we don't bother mentioning in these updates.

Matt has been busy sending in reviews of titles where he looks at them from a modern perspective, and attempts to deduce what upset the censors at the time of their original submission.

So first up we have a double-bill of Paul Naschy titles in the shape of HORROR RISES FROM THE TOMB, and INQUISITION. The former lost a minute in 1974, and the latter was banned outright in 1985.

Update 30th November 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News 
16th November 2008

Games R18+: It's back on!

Last update we reported that the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson had withdrew his support for the R18+ games discussion paper. However, in their Brisbane meeting on the 6th of November the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General came to an agreement to have the discussion paper completed in a couple of months.

"Yes" - minister Screenplay Blog 07.11.08

Spokesperson for Mr Hulls, Meaghan Shaw, said "censorship ministers at SCAG agreed that the discussion paper will be finalised by the end of the year, with the view to Australia-wide distribution."

Ministers originally agreed back in March to canvas public opinion on the proposed introduction of a R18+ classification for games following the release of a discussion paper on the issue.

A draft of the paper, simply titled "R18+ for computer games" was sent to ministers in September and details the "pros and cons" of introducing an adults-only rating for games.

When finalised, the paper will be available to the public on the internet and provided to interested parties such as games industry groups and family associations to seek their views.

The South Australian Attorney-General would not specify last week why he was unable to support the release of the discussion paper, and it has not been revealed why he changed his stance yesterday at SCAG.

A week ago Michael Atkinson was interviewed for the ABC's South Australian Stateline program for a segment on the lack of an R18+ rating for games. You can find the clip here after you have taken a look through his other considerable pro-censorship achievements.

******

HOOLIGANS: STORM OVER EUROPE: Confiscated by Customs

Back in June we wrote that we had heard about very few games being seized by customs. All we knew of was that in November 2001 a poster to a newsgroup claimed they had lost six copies of GRAND THEFT AUTO 3. Since then we have been told of one copy of the uncut version of GRAND THEFT AUTO IV being taken. Now we can add the game HOOLIGANS: STORM OVER EUROPE which was confiscated back in 2005. This game had never been released in Australia, and as such had not been rated by the Classification Board. We cannot believe that customs would have actually played the game before making their decision. The British 18 certificate was probably enough to alert them to the game. Unfortunately this is an unreliable indication of the content as the British censors routinely classify films and games with 18 rating (equivalent to R18+), when they receive MA15+ ratings from our own Classification Board. All this is of little consolation to the victim of customs who lost their game. Hopefully this will alert others to think twice about importing this title. We are warning you, but customs are not.

In the words of the OFLC.

It's a bit of a lottery really. Thousands come in to the country un-noticed, and some get stopped. 

******

FALLOUT 3 (MA15+) vs. DARK SECTOR (RC)

The ever reliable Mick has provided a review of the censored (for drugs only!) version of FALLOUT 3, with the uncut version of DARK SECTOR. He concludes that the violence in FALLOUT 3 as graphic as anything found in the banned version of DARK SECTOR.

******

Internet Censorship: Questions in the Senate

The opposition to Conroy's internet filtering scheme is continuing to grow. In the last update we covered the efforts of the Greens Senator Scott Ludlam to get a straight answer from Conroy during Senate Estimates. This week he has been back at it in the Senate, eventually getting a clarification from Conroy on Thursday.

Michael Meloni's has all the weeks news over at Somebody Think of the Children.

Get organised and keep informed! 

******

KILLING ME SOFTLY: Rated Unrestricted 

Following the May suicide of Perth woman Erin Berg in Tijuana Mexico, her sisters claimed she had used the book KILLING ME SOFTLY as a guide to end her life. They wrote to the Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland calling for it to be banned. In October the Donald McDonald contacted Penguin, the publisher, and called it in for rating. This has now resulted in the book being awarded an Unrestricted rating.

In 2006 Phillip Nitschke and Fiona Stewart followed KILLING ME SOFTLY with THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK. This was originally rated Category 1 by the Classification Board, only to later have that rating overturned and banned by the Review Board.  With the recent release of an online digital version, the ban is proving impossible to police

******

Porn DVD's. One banned, Two Censored

Homesafe DVD has lost CHICKS GONE WILD 2 to the censors, but have resurrected PUSSY SWEAT and EDEN.

The latest addition to the database is the Smash Pictures production, CHICKS GONE WILD 2. This is the third title that Homesafe DVD has had banned since October. The first part of CHICKS GONE WILD escaped with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating.

Meanwhile they have been busy producing sanitised versions of PUSSY SWEAT and EDEN. The former was originally banned way back in April.

The EDEN review and PUSSY SWEAT review over at Adult DVD Talk mention no obvious problematic content.

******

Eros Magazine Vol.9 No.4.

The latest issue of Eros Magazine, Vol.9 No.3 is out now. Subscription information and a selection of some of the articles can be found here. 

It includes details of the latest poll that shows 71.7% of respondents disagreed with the prohibition of X18+ by the various State governments. Also featured is Fiona Patten's looks at the planned internet censorship laws.

As reported in this last update, National's Senator Barnaby Joyce had a thing or two to say in Senate Estimates regarding the availability of adult magazines. Here is the Eros take on the situation.

Servo Porn
Tuesday, 21 October 2008

Eros Association calls for porn law overhaul

Sex industry lobby group the Eros Association has backed Coalition senators in urging an overhaul of the national classification regime for pornographic magazines and movies.

Eros chief executive Fiona Patten said the system as it now stood wasn't working, with inappropriate material sold through convenience stores and service stations.

Ms Patten said Eros had warned of the problem for years.

But, she said, the Classification Board's community liaison scheme was too obsessed with policing the sale of X-rated films in adult shops to worry about the availability of adult material in family areas.

Ms Patten said Eros supported Nationals senate leader Barnaby Joyce's action in raising the issue of magazine classifications during the Senate estimates hearing yesterday.

"It's time for the federal government to overhaul the national classification scheme for publications," she said in a statement.

Ms Patten said all adult magazines and books were supposed to be submitted to the federal government for classification, but less than five per cent of such publications sold in Australia had actually undergone classification.

She said classification cost some $500-$700 per publication and for an importer bringing in just 10 copies of a specialist magazine, that would require a cover price of $70 to cover costs.

"So, clearly, they cannot comply with the law or they will go broke," she said.

Frequently the same publication was imported by two or three businesses. But because a publication needed to be classified only once, the first to do so was actually covering the costs of competitors, Ms Patten said.

She said the public clearly had no idea about the differences between an R- and X-rated film, a category 1 or 2 restricted magazine or an MA rated computer game.

"It's time the government reformed the classification scheme to create a more uniform adult category called non-violent erotica that spans films, publications and computer games that all fall under the same set of guidelines," she said.

******

OPEN SEASON 2: Challenge Fails to PG Rating

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment have failed in their attempt to have the PG awarded to OPEN SEASON 2 dropped to a G-rating. It has become normal for the Review Board to at least change the consumer advice. In this case they have thrown Sony a bone by toning the warning down from 'Mild violence and coarse language' to simply 'Mild animated violence’.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
5 November 2008 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Open Season 2 classified PG (Parental Guidance) upon review

A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board has unanimously determined that the film Open Season 2 is classified PG (Parental Guidance) with the consumer advice ‘Mild animated violence’. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Open Season 2 warrants a PG classification because, while the film includes some violence, the violence is animated, mild and infrequent and justified by context. 

“The nature of the film warranted a change in consumer advice to inform parents that there were depictions of mild animated violence,” said Classification Review Board Acting Convenor, Trevor Griffin. 

Films classified PG are not recommended for viewing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. 

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to review the decision made by the Classification Board on 15 October 2008 to classifiy the film PG (Parental Guidance) with the consumer advice, ‘Mild violence and coarse language’. 

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. 

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board. 

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on www.classification.gov.au when finalised. 

Update 16th November 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News 
2nd November 2008

DEAD SPACE: Two MA15+ ratings

The game DEAD SPACE was classified MA15+ (Strong Violence) in April, and again in August. We've now created a database entry explaining the reasons for the two submissions.

Remember the games database contains many titles that have not been banned or censored in Australia. They are there to illustrate classification policy and provide information on high-end MA15+ or borderline RC titles. We try and clarify this for each entry, but this has not prevented people copying and pasting the list and claiming all the titles have been banned in Australia.

******

Senate Estimates: Conroy Questioned on Internet Filtering

Senate Estimates has just been held in Canberra. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam put some great questions to Stephen Conroy. For his part Conroy fell back on the old favourite, if you are against filtering, you must be in support of child pornography.

Senator LUDLAM—Just let me finish. In terms of the countries that you have just listed for me, it is mandatory or is it an opt-in system that, for example, concerned parents could take advantage of?

Senator Conroy—Illegal material is illegal material. Child pornography is child pornography. I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.

At present no one is covering the debate as well as Michael Meloni's Somebody Think of the Children. Michael has been on top of all the recent developments, with near daily updates. A recent post of his brought to our attention the Electronic Freedom Project. This is a simple, but highly effective tool that we have been waiting for. First you write to your local member, ask them their views about internet censorship, and then post their response on the EFP wiki. The religious right have always been especially organised when getting their views over to politicians. So it is heartening to see the anti-censorship movement at last doing the same. So get writing to your local member, and post the results for all to see.

So how long until we get an R18+ games wiki? 

******

Censored and Banned Porn DVD's

As predicted, FZ (NSW) have bent to the censor's will and cut their DVD of Rob Hout's THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #3. It was hit with an RC rating on September 11th. This joins FINNISH EROTICA 1 which was banned in November 2007, and FINNISH EROTICA #2 which was banned in March 2008. All three censored volumes now hold X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings.

Calvista have also sanitised DOUBLE VISION 2 which also now holds an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating.

The latest title to be banned is the Smash Pictures production, KILLER GRIP #4 Homesafe DVD had this title banned by the Classification Board on October 7th 2008. The Adult DVD Talk review provides no easy clues to the reason for the ban.

******

R18+ for games: The saga continues...

It looks like the R18+ games rating is set to drag on some more now that South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has withdrawn his support for the proposed discussion paper.

Censoring the censorship debate. Screenplay Blog 30.10.08

The introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games has been delayed indefinitely after South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson withdrew his support for a discussion paper and public consultation process.

Censorship ministers in March agreed "in principle" to canvas public opinion on the proposed introduction of a R18+ classification for games and release a discussion paper on the issue, but Mr Atkinson has refused to agree to make the report public, effectively shelving it.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls, who has long supported the push for an R18+ games rating and took the lead in drafting the discussion paper, appears resigned that no changes to the classification system for games will be made anytime soon.

Spokesperson for Mr Hulls, Meaghan Shaw, said "whilst the issue is still formally on the SCAG (Standing Committee of Attorneys-General) agenda, it now appears unlikely that there will be unanimity from all jurisdictions to proceed further at this stage with introducing an R18+ category for computer games."

Mr Atkinson has opposed the introduction of an R18+ rating for games for many years, telling parliament earlier this year that he knew it denied Australian adults choice but was necessary to help restrict children's access to "potentially harmful material".

"Games may pose a far greater problem than other media - particularly films - because their interactive nature could exacerbate their impact," Mr Atkinson said. "The risk of interactivity on players of computer games with highly violent content is increased aggressive behaviour."

Ron Curry, CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, says the local games industry will continue to fight "to reach an outcome that reflects what the majority of the population expects from the classification regime".

"You could be forgiven for taking a view that the South Australian Attorney-General has now actively censored the debate on censorship. What's next?"

The issue is again on the agenda for discussion at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting next month.

In the past couple of weeks we have had three of the most conservative politicians in Australia come out in favour of a new rating.

On October 16th the Liberal's Alex Hawke had this to say in Parliament.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:48 AM) —I rise this morning to support calls from parents within my electorate for a R18+ rating system to be applied to video games.

While on October 20th Tasmanian Liberal, Guy Barnett and Queensland National, Barnaby Joyce, criticised Michael Atkinson for standing in the way of an R18+. 

Senator JOYCE—Apart from South Australia, are there any other states that are recalcitrant in this process? 

Senator BARNETT—Some of us are dumbfounded as to why we do not have an R rating for video games. Can you share any argument as to why we do not?

Meanwhile the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia has just released its latest report into the gaming habits of the nation. It found that 91% of those surveyed supported an R18+ for games. The full report can be found at the IEAA website. 

The main points of interest for those of us interested in censorship are as follows.

www.ieaa.com.au
Interactive Australia 2009

CLASSIFICATION 

According to the Classification Board, 75% of all computer and video games classified in Australia in 2006-2007 were either G or PG. 1% of games were either refused classification or withdrawn from the process. 

63% of participants do not realise Australia has no R18+ classification for games. 

91% of Australian adults (including gamers AND non-gamers) think that Australia should have an R18+ classification for games. 

78% of parents say an adult is present when games are purchased for their children. 

92% of parents say they are aware of the games that are played in their homes. 

Gamer adults use their knowledge of games to make informed decisions about games they buy for younger players, non-gamer adults rely more on the classification shown on game packaging. 

Classification is mainly used by adults choosing games for children and less often for adults buying games for themselves or other adults.

Stage 3. 

Awareness of Classification 

Australians can be forgiven for not being aware of, or for being confused by, the absence of an R18+ for computer and video games when the classification applies to other media. 

In 2005, the GamePlay Australia study found that one quarter of Australian adults were unaware that Australia had no R18+ for games. In 2008, the proportion has exceeded just one third. 

Nearly two-thirds of all Australian adults are unaware that the Australian classification system has no R18+ for games even though it does have an R18+ for other media. As a result, parents say things like, “If I know that I wouldn’t think MA15+ was for my 15-year-old.” 

Others are afraid they cannot get games they want to play. Still others are worried that games that should be R18+ are “slipping under the radar” and “skipping Aussie businesses” by coming in from online suppliers who operate overseas. 

91% of Australian adults in this study, whether from game or no-game households, whether gamers themselves or non-gamers, think that Australia should have an R18+ for games just as it does for other media . Opinions about R18+ are strong as the quotations from the survey shown below demonstrate.

Stage 4. 

Classification and Purchasing 

These findings demonstrate that Australian parents use classification more to guide their purchases of games for their children than for themselves or other adults in their homes. Figure 32 illustrates the different degrees of influence classification markings on a game package have when applied to games for children compared with games for adults. Only 6% of adults say the classification marking has “no influence” on their purchase of a game for a child, but 25% say classification has “no influence” when a game is purchased for an adult. By comparison, 46% say classification has “a lot of influence” on their decision to buy a game for a child but only 24% say it has “a lot of influence” when a game is purchased for an adult. 

The absence of an R18+ arguably under-informs parents and over-simplifies the message about the range of game products available in the marketplace.

Parents say they are almost always present when a game is purchased for their child or children. Indeed only 1% say they or another adult is “never” present for the purchase or hire of a computer or video game to be played by their children. More than half are “always present.” Another 24% are present “most of the time.” Thus when combining the degrees of presence, 78% of parents say an adult is generally present when games are purchased for their children.

Australian parents are more likely than not to engage with their children when their children want them to purchase a new game. More than 51% have their children with them when a game is purchased for their child either “most of the time” or “always” and another 36% have their children with them “sometimes.” Only 13% say their children are “rarely” or “never” with them at the time of purchase. For those parents, it seems discussion, education, negotiation and engagement is a standard part of their desire to serve their role as a parent.

92% of parents say they are either “completely aware” or “mostly aware” of the games that are played in their homes. Less than one percent claim not to know. Further, more than half of all parents in homes with new consoles featuring parental control systems say they are using these to regulate the games their children can access.

Moreover, compared with non-gamer adults (including but not limited to parents), gamer adults use their knowledge of games to make more nuanced decisions about the games they buy for younger players. When asked whether they would buy games for someone who does not meet the classification age marked on a game package, nearly 80% of non-gamer adults said “no” compared with 57% of gamer adults. Furthermore, only 17% of non-gamer adults said “it depends” while 37% of gamer adults said “it depends.”

In the absence of awareness about game content, non-gamer parents rely heavily, but not exclusively on the classification a game receives by the government. On this basis, it seems particularly important for government to advise consumers fully on the nature of games in the market place. A father said, “R would be a clear “no” in my house, but an MA15+, I don’t know.”

Stage 5. Conclusions

There is a very large awareness deficit about the classification system in Australia despite years of attempts at educating Australians by the Classification Board. Indeed, 63% of adults do not realise Australia has no R18+ classification for games. This is a clear policy and communication failure. When made aware, 91% of Australian adults (including both gaming and non-gaming) think that Australia should have an R18+ for games.

Fortunately, the absence of a complete classification regime does not affect the way most Australians go about buying games. 78% of parents say an adult is present when games are purchased for their children and 92% of parents saying they are aware of the games that are played in their homes. Even more heartening is that the increasing number of parents who also play computer games means they are more knowledgeable about the games on the market. Gamer adults use their knowledge of games to make informed decisions about games they buy for younger players, non-gamer adults rely more on the classification on game packaging.

Interactive Australia report reignites games ratings debate news.com.au 27.10.08

"We're on of the only developed countries yet to adopt an R18+ classification," IEAA chief executive officer Ron Curry said in a statement.

"With the average age of gamers being 30, it makes no sense to censor games to a point where they are only appropriate for a 15 year old.

"Such censorship would not be acceptable in television, at the cinema or in print, so why apply it unfairly to another entertainment medium?"

Dr Jeffrey Brand, the author of the report, told a press conference today he finds the country's controversial classifications system insulting.

"It is offensive to me, as a parent, to say that I can't make choices for my children."

The study found that 70 per cent of parents play video games and 92 per cent were aware of what games were being played in their household.

91 per cent of respondents – both gamers and non-gamers – said they supported an R18+ rating for games, up from 88 per cent an earlier study.

"In 2005, I though 88 per cent was extreme, but it's not," Dr Brand said.

******

Senate Estimates: Porn Mags, Art Monthly, and Games R18+

More from the recent Senate Estimates hearings. This time the full line up of pro-censorship loons, Joyce, McGauran, Barnett, and Fierravnti-Wells, waited in line to quiz the Classification Board. Topics covered include the adult magazine ratings, community liaison officers, the classification of Art Monthly, the lack of an R18+ rating for games, and legal challenges to decisions of the Classification Board.

The R18+ games rating discussion is worth reading as Guy Barnett and Barnaby Joyce, two of the most conservative Senators, both seem to be in favour of it. Indeed they see it as a problem that Michael Atkinson is delaying its introduction. 

Senator JOYCE—Apart from South Australia, are there any other states that are recalcitrant in this process? 

Senator BARNETT—Some of us are dumbfounded as to why we do not have an R rating for video games. Can you share any argument as to why we do not?

Favourite moment goes to Philippa Lynch's response to a sarcastic question from Julian McGauran.

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

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

The full unedited debate is as follows.

The Senators doing the questioning are:

Senator Barnaby Joyce Qld National
Senator Julian McGauran Vic Liberal 
Senator Gavin Marshall Vic Labor
Senator the Hon George Brandis SC Qld Liberal
Senator Guy Barnett Tas Liberal
Senator the Hon Penny Wong SA Labor
Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells NSW Liberal

Those providing the answers are:

Classification Board-Ms Olya Booyar, Acting Director
Classification Review Board - The Hon. Trevor Griffin, Acting Convenor
Mr Roger Wilkins - Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department
Ms Philippa Lynch - First Assistant Secretary, Classification, Human Rights and Copyright Division
Ms Amanda Davies - Assistant Secretary, Classification Policy Branch

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS ESTIMATES (Supplementary Budget Estimates) 
MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2008 CANBERRA

Proceedings suspended from 3.28 pm to 3.46 pm 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S PORTFOLIO 

Classification Board

CHAIR —I reconvene the estimates hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I welcome officers from the Classification Board. Do you need to start the proceedings this afternoon with an opening statement?

Ms Booyar —No.

CHAIR —We will go to questions from Senator Joyce.

Senator JOYCE —At the outset my questions regard a survey that was brought into my office by some women regarding certain magazines which they had managed to pick up at certain service stations and corner stores. It talks to how these things got classification. I do not particularly want some of the titles and some of the information to go into the Hansard, so I ask for permission to have that tabled.

CHAIR —Leave is granted.

Senator JOYCE —Thank you. I will circulate that to both of the witnesses and to the senators who are present. Mr Wilkins, some of these things have received classification and they have been picked up. You can see some of the issues that are spoken to on that last page. They are direct quotes. Do you feel comfortable with those? I refer to the last page under Live Young Girls titles. Are you comfortable with that?

Mr Wilkins —Am I comfortable with the last page? What is the point of whether I am comfortable or not?

Senator JOYCE —The point is that this has received classification. It pertains to an insinuation that these girls are actually underage and that this is freely available at certain corner stores and service stations. Before I start asking questions I am asking you if you are aware of this and if you are comfortable with it.

Mr Wilkins—I do not know that it is important that I am comfortable with it or not, actually. I think that is beside the point. The question is whether they have properly complied with the standards set down by the parliament for classification, which I assume they have.

Senator JOYCE —Okay. These are the questions I am going to go into. I see that some of them have received classification: Live Young Girls, Finally Legal, Finally Legal Petite. You can imagine exactly what is in them, so I am going to ask you some questions about that. Can you please provide details on the processes of classifying magazines.

Ms Booyar—The publications get classified according to our publications guidelines and the code. They consist of three categories—unrestricted, category 1 restricted and category 2 restricted. Unrestricted magazines may be available for sale at public premises. All three classifications deal with material that is not suitable for minors to see. The unrestricted ones are marked in that way but they are not sealed in a wrapper. Category 1 magazines are available in public premises like gas stations and newsagents. They are sealed in opaque wrappers, with only the masthead visible. Category 2 magazines are available only in restricted premises—and not at all in Queensland and some parts of the Northern Territory.

Senator JOYCE—How many requests per year does the board receive from pornography distributors for classification of pornographic publications or other classifiable or sexually explicit content magazines or other literature?

Ms Booyar —I will get some advice on that. I am advised that in the last financial year the total number of applications was 250.

Senator JOYCE —How many classifiable, sexually explicit or pornographic magazine titles does the board classify each year?

Ms Booyar—The number of 250 includes all unrestricted, category 1 and category 2 restricted. There was one title that was refused classification.

Senator JOYCE —Only one title was refused classification?

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator JOYCE —How many, then, were classified category 1 and category 2?

Ms Booyar —One hundred and forty-five were classified category 1 restricted and 56 were classified category 2 restricted.

Senator JOYCE—Of applications received, how many publications or literature with some sexually explicit or sexual or nude content have been classified unrestricted but with conditions requiring a sealed wrapping?

Ms Booyar —The unrestricted publications normally do not require a sealed wrapper.

Senator JOYCE —Unrestricted does not require one?

Ms Booyar —No.

Senator JOYCE—Of applications received, how many publications or literature have been classified category 1 restricted with conditions requiring their display and sale in opaque sealed wrapping or without any conditions requiring sealed wrapping or opaque wrapping?

Ms Booyar —As far as I am aware, all of the category 1 publications have a condition that they be sold in a sealed and opaque wrapper.

Senator JOYCE—Is the department or board aware of pornographic titles containing sexually explicit, sexual or nude content, such as they would likely be classifiable, which have not been classified being sold openly in corner stores, petrol stations and small supermarkets?

Ms Booyar—We become aware of those from time to time and we report them to our CLS officers, and they in turn report that to the state authorities.

Senator JOYCE—Where from time to time? Does it surprise you that some ladies can bring this stuff into my office and your classification officers are not finding it?

Ms Booyar —We do not go looking for the magazines. That is the job of the CLS officers and their community liaison.

Senator JOYCE—Does the department or the board have any information or estimates on the number of pornographic titles with classifiable content that are being sold without classification in Australian states or territories?

Ms Booyar —No, we do not.

Senator JOYCE—What role does the department or the board play in ensuring titles are classified within the National Classification Scheme? I acknowledge that enforcement is largely in the hands of the states.

Ms Booyar—The board classifies whatever is submitted to the board. The publications such as those which you have brought to our attention today are all submittable publications and they all should be submitted for classification. But, as I said before, the board does not go looking for publications which should be submitted. We can classify only what is submitted to us.

Senator JOYCE—What penalties are in place for importers, distributors and sellers who import, distribute and sell unclassified literature, publications or titles that, if classified, may be restricted or even refused classification?

Ms Lynch—The enforcement provisions are mainly in state and territory legislation. We could take that question on notice and get you an answer, but I do not have the details. There would also be some Customs offences—

Senator JOYCE —So you are not aware of any penalties except those under state laws?

Ms Lynch —And possibly Customs, Senator. I could give you the details if I could take that on notice.

Senator JOYCE—Sure. In the case of periodicals, in which classification is granted for a set time or for a set number of volumes or editions, how does the department, and specifically the board, ensure that the content originally classified is reflective of later editions or volumes?

Ms Booyar—The application that the applicant fills out must be signed by the applicant to say that any future publications of that nature will be modified to the standards that the board has required. If there is a complaint made, we go back to the distributor or the applicant.

Senator JOYCE —And you are happy that is being done at the moment or is being complied with across the board?

Ms Booyar—I am not aware of whether it is complied with across the board but I am aware that the instances that come before the board are actually looked at and we follow them up.

Senator JOYCE—What penalties would be applied to publishers of periodicals who change their content such that it is no longer reflective of its classification once that classification has been made? Mr Wilkins, you might want to answer that.

Mr Wilkins —I do not know the answer to that question but I will find out for you.

Ms Booyar —If I may clarify one section of that: one of the penalties is that they have their classification revoked.

Senator JOYCE —Does the board conduct audits?

Ms Booyar —Yes, we do.

Senator JOYCE —When was the last one?

Ms Booyar —Last week.

Senator JOYCE —How many did you check?

Ms Booyar —We audit approximately 10 per cent at the very least. That is a floor for us, not a ceiling.

Senator JOYCE —What was the range of periodicals that you audited?

Ms Booyar —Mainly under restricted and category 1, and not so many under category 2.

Senator JOYCE —Who is responsible for that? You, Ms Booyar?

Ms Booyar —For the audit part, yes.

Senator BARNETT —Is that 10 per cent of the total number of publications?

Ms Booyar —Ten per cent of the publications that have a classification or a serial classification with us.

Senator BARNETT —You do an audit of that how often?

Ms Booyar—They come up at least once a week. Once a week or once every two weeks there are a number of publications that come to us for an audit.

Senator JOYCE—Can you provide details of any audits conducted in the last five years, including lists of titles which were found to be wrongly or incorrectly classified or never submitted for classification?

Ms Booyar —I will take that on notice and supply that.

Senator JOYCE—Would the department be able to detail any recent research it has conducted into the content of sexually explicit publications typically on sale in all or some of the states or territories and research specifically into the types of content and images for sale?

Ms Booyar—I am not aware of any research that the department has recently done other than in relation to the audits that the acting director has mentioned. We can take that on notice.

Senator JOYCE—Would the department detail any recent research conducted into how current classification decisions reflect or are discordant with community attitudes specifically in relation to the content of the range of periodical or other publications on sale in supermarkets, service stations and adult shops?

Ms Booyar —I will take that on notice.

Senator JOYCE—Would the board or the department please explain when themes or intimations of rape and incest are permissible in either category 1 or category 2 publications and what factors will result in a decision to refuse classification to publications whose content includes some or much reference to these themes either separately or together?

Ms Booyar—I am happy to go through that, but I can also furnish you with a copy of the guidelines which actually talk about what is in the—

Senator JOYCE—We will cut to the chase. Are you happy with intimations of rape or incest in these classifications? Are you comfortable with them? Do you have any desire to change them?

CHAIR —Senator Joyce, officers are not required to answer questions of opinion.

Mr Wilkins —That is a policy issue.

CHAIR —I would ask that you rephrase that question.

Senator JOYCE—We will bring the matter up in parliament. Would the board or department explain and detail the factors that will cause publications with content themes relating to sexual acts with minors to be either granted category 1, category 2 classification or refused classification?

Ms Booyar —Without having knowledge of a specific situation, that would ordinarily be refused classification.

Senator JOYCE—I have submitted titles to you, which I do not want to read out, and you have seen the question at the top there. Could the board advise, on the following titles, whether it considers its original ruling is consistent with the guidelines and, where it appears a title was not submitted for classification, please advise as to how the board will address that? You have seen them; what are your views?

Senator Wong—Chair, if I could just comment, while Ms Booyar is preparing to answer the question. As I understand it, a number of Senator Joyce’s questions go to the content and possibly the application of the guidelines for the classification of publications. Obviously, I am new to this committee, but I am advised that these guidelines function under a cooperative arrangement whereby they are agreed between the relevant Commonwealth state and territory ministers. I do not know whether that assists Senator Joyce in terms of the legal framework that governs the decisions that the board makes.

Senator JOYCE —Obviously, Minister, what I am trying to get at here is how we change this. This is pretty abhorrent.

Senator Wong—I appreciate your views about this, Senator. I am simply indicating my understanding of the arrangements. I do not know whether Mr Griffin has something to say.

Mr Griffin—I was involved in the early stages of the development of the cooperative scheme. This is a cooperative scheme between state and federal governments. The classification requirements are contained in federal legislation, but the offences provisions and the enforcement provisions are contained in state and territory law. Primary responsibility for enforcement lies with the states. The way to get any changes to the scheme is basically through the ministers responsible for censorship. The scheme is set up so that, under the Commonwealth act, there are criterion and principles which must be taken into consideration and then there are guidelines established by the ministers responsible for censorship. That is more the way it goes, rather than it being directly and solely a Commonwealth responsibility.

Senator JOYCE—I will have to ask these questions in the light of your working with the states. How do the states, the department and the board agree that, under the classification legislation, including the guidelines and the code, depictions of adults engaged in sexual acts with minors should be refused classification? Do you agree that it should be refused classification?

Ms Booyar —That is in the guidelines. If there are depictions of minors—I will just read it out; it is in the refused classification—

Senator JOYCE —So if I—

Senator Wong —Senator, I think Ms Booyar is finding the appropriate section of the refused classification guidelines relating to the section.

Ms Booyar —The guidelines state:

Publications that:

… … …

(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not)—

would be a refused classification.

Senator JOYCE —But you have seen these titles I have just handed out. Gosh! You can read it. You know what they are intimating. They are intimating at under age. Do you believe that these titles, these statements and these quotations from these advertisements for this explicit material intimates under age—

Ms Booyar—I would have to see that in the context of the whole magazine. It is very difficult to pick out the quotes and see what they relate to. We ordinarily look at the full magazine to classify it.

Senator JOYCE —Come on, fair go. ‘Daddy’s blanks, big blanks, little blanks’—I think we know what we are talking about here.

CHAIR —Senator Joyce, can I just—

Senator JOYCE —All right, we will go back to other questions.

CHAIR—Senator Joyce, I just want to reiterate that, in the committee’s opening statement, we make a very clear statement that officers are not to be asked their opinion of matters. I think Ms Booyar has said that she would need to see this in context and, as I understand it, the Classification Review Board is the body that makes these decisions.

Senator JOYCE—Does the board or the department hold the view that the current classification register requires that, in reality, only actors be 18 years or older? What steps will the board take to ensure that such actors are in fact at majority when they are photographed?

Ms Booyar—As to whether or not they are at majority when they are photographed, the board or the panel when it sits to consider the magazine looks at a number of different criterion to determine whether it feels that the person is or is not under 18. These magazines that we are talking about do not leave a lot out. We look at their bodies, their physical characteristics and the set up in which they are photographed and we make a decision on that.

Senator JOYCE—Once more, I refer you to the last page, ‘Examples of content and advertisements from the magazines listed above,’ which the board currently have. You see that they suggest that the physical attributes of the people would suggest under age.

Ms Booyar —Again, I would have to see that in the context.

Senator JOYCE—Does the board or the department regard the fictional age depicted rather than the actors’ or the models’ ages of greater relevance to consideration than the contents’ lawfulness?

Ms Booyar —Can you say that again.

Senator JOYCE—Is how the person who is being exploited in these pictures depicted of more relevance than what their actual age is? If they are depicted as a 13-year-old girl, the fact that they are 19 is neither here nor there. It is suggested and is aimed at a market that wants to get a form of lift out of that sort of—

Ms Booyar —Again, I would have to see that in the context. It is hard for me to give you an opinion on something I have not seen.

Senator JOYCE—If the actor or model portrays a minor engaged in sexual acts or as a sexual participant with adults, would that depiction be unlawful?

Ms Booyar—Again, according to the refused classification guidelines, if it describes or depicts in a way that is likely to cause offence a person who appears to be or is a child under 18 it would be refused classification.

Senator JOYCE—How would the board ascertain whether the depiction portrays an actor or a model as a minor? Would depicting a female participant with pigtails, teddy bears, braces on her teeth, and hand puppets, in conjunction with content, narratives or titles or descriptors suggesting the character’s minor status weigh in favour of deciding that the depiction was unlawful and not able to be classified? Or has that got to be seen in the context?

Ms Booyar —What is the question?

Senator JOYCE—I am saying that if you have got a girl who is obviously depicted as a minor—young, with pigtails, teddy bears, braces on her teeth, hand puppets—in conjunction with content, narrative, titles or descriptors suggesting the minor status, does this weigh in favour of deciding that the depiction is unlawful and unable to be classified?

Ms Booyar—Again, it really has to be seen in context. In the magazines that are before the board there are sometimes people who are well into their 30s who are depicted like that and they are clearly not minors. So it is the context.

Senator JOYCE—If I can have these ladies deliver to me publications showing people who are obviously not in their 30s, would you suggest they are obviously being portrayed as minors?

Ms Booyar —We would look at that.

Senator JOYCE—They have given it to you. What I have tabled has already been sent to you. What are the penalties for importers, distributors and sellers who sell titles which have been incorrectly classified?

Senator Wong —Sorry, what are the penalties for importers—

Senator JOYCE —Distributors and sellers who sell titles which have been incorrectly classified.

Ms Williams —The penalties are contained in state and territory legislation.

Senator JOYCE —So it is a flick pass to the states and territories. The buck stops where?

Mr Griffin —Can I answer that?

Senator JOYCE —Anybody can.

Mr Griffin—I will try to assist the committee. I think ultimately the buck stops, in the first instance, with the ministers responsible for censorship but ultimately with governments, under the cooperative scheme. Whilst there may be criticism of some of the classifications which are made, the whole scheme sets out quite clearly the principles, the criteria and ultimately the guidelines which are to assist in the classification of films, publications et cetera. Whilst they are reasonably clear, ultimately there will be a measure of subjective interpretation in accordance with the context in which the various items appear, whether it is in a publication or whether it is in a DVD, video or computer game. That is the difficulty. One really does need to see the whole magazine, film, video or whatever to look at the context. But one needs to keep very much at the forefront of one’s mind the mandatory requirements such as the one that has just been referred to, and that is that if there is a publication that describes or depicts in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a person who is or appears to be a child under 18, whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not, that is refused classification both in the magazine context and also in films and videos.

Senator JOYCE —So in something like what we have here—’slutty schoolgirls’—would you presume that they were over 18 or under 18?

Senator Wong—Senator, please. Perhaps, Madam Chair, I could assist here. Can I say, Senator Joyce, that I understand your concern about these issues. I have to say I find the document you have provided most disturbing. But essentially what you seem to be asking these officers at the table is for a rationale for the classification decision the board has made in relation to these publications as against those guidelines. As Ms Booyar has indicated, that is difficult for her to do in the current context. I also understand from officers at the table that some of what you have provided—and I think you may have alluded to this—is the subject of a complaint. If you wish to continue with your questions, that is obviously your prerogative, but I wonder if it would be most helpful if the officers could be given the opportunity to consider their response, given the two contexts which I outlined.

Senator JOYCE—Minister, I want an outcome. That is the whole reason I have come down here on Monday. I have two more questions. You know what I am getting at. There is a sentiment that I am sure would go throughout this room. If people saw this they would say that it was obviously angled towards children and it has to be taken out of our agenda. That is the whole purpose of this. But I have two more questions. The first is: why have some titles which have previously received a category 2 or been refused classification by the board been given category 1 serial classification?

Ms Booyar —They would have been like that because they would have been modified.

Senator JOYCE—If, as it appears, only a small percentage of pornographic publications are presented for classification and we are ending up with hardcore pornography in convenience stores, how can the current system be effective?

Senator Wong—I am not sure Ms Booyar can answer that question. I have outlined my understanding, which is that these guidelines have been agreed by relevant ministers across jurisdictions. I think you are asking a policy opinion question of the officers, which is not something they are generally required to answer.

Senator JOYCE —Thank you very much. You have said that some of the issues are political issues. I will be pursuing them politically.

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

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

Senator McGAURAN —Not you, Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Wong —Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator McGAURAN —That is what I am asking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Wilkins —So what is the question?

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

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

Senator McGAURAN —What imputation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator BARNETT—My point is that it is based on public concern. A lot of these publications are just out there, and perhaps the public’s concerns have not been made available to you or known to you, and yet these publications are out there which are indeed offensive or should be restricted or classified in some way. Does that make sense, and would that be correct?

Ms Booyar —I am not sure what your question is.

Senator BARNETT—Let me rephrase it. Are there publications that are distributed in the community that are unclassified that should be classified?

Ms Booyar—I do not know the answer to that. Under our scheme, there are specific examples and definitions of what a submittable publication is. There are myriad publications outside that which are not submittable publications. Unless the board and the director have a reason to believe that a publication may be submittable, it does not have to be submitted for classification. That is within the law and our codes.

Senator BARNETT —But the very reason that the director wrote to the publisher of Art Monthly is because concerns were raised by members of the public. My point is that there are other publications out there that you are not being made aware of that should be classified. Do you agree?

Ms Booyar —If we are made aware of them we will look at them.

Senator BARNETT —But there are no doubt publications in the community that you are not aware of that should be classified. Can you confirm that?

Ms Booyar —I am not aware of that, so—

CHAIR —Senator Barnett, do you have some examples of those publications to assist Ms Booyar?

Senator BARNETT —Art Monthly is an excellent example.

CHAIR —But are there others that you—

Ms Booyar —The Art Monthly magazine has been published for some time and the issue in question was that one particular issue, not every issue.

Senator JOYCE—Madam Chair, I have got an example of something that has been classified as category 2 but appeared in a package with a category 1 label. This was the category 1 label and how it was sold:

Live young girls, boobless beauty, flat as a board—and still unexplored

How would you see that in context? Would you see that as reflecting someone over 18 or under 18?

CHAIR —What publication is that from, Senator?

Senator JOYCE —That is from a magazine. It could have been Zoo. I will check that out.

Ms Booyar —Zoo Weekly?

Senator JOYCE—How would you see that? I can get for you exactly the magazine it came from, but I want to know how you would perceive that. What age group would you say that they were suggesting in their advertising?

CHAIR—Senator Joyce, I think it is unfair for Ms Booyar to be asked to provide you with a response. You need to specifically name the magazine and then she would know whether it is submittable or not. So it is difficult to provide you with an answer if you cannot give us the name of the magazine.

Senator BRANDIS—That is complete nonsense. He has given her a block of words, which is a descriptor in a magazine, and asked her to comment on what she makes of it and whether it would be a likely reference to underage. It is not necessary and you know it as well as I do.

CHAIR —Senator Brandis, what we—

Senator BRANDIS —It is not necessary for a senator to quote a source in order to put a proposition to a witness.

CHAIR—Senator Brandis, we are talking about magazines that are out there in the public that are either submittable or not submittable magazines. For Ms Booyar to be able to answer that question as accurately as she can it would be useful to know what magazine that quote was taken from. Then she could answer the pre-eminent question of whether or not that is a submittable magazine or not.

Senator JOYCE —I can get the exact magazine and I can get you the exact date. The quote is:

Live young girls, boobless beauty, flat as a board—and still unexplored.

How would you see that—as advertising in a magazine that would be selling, for want of a better word, pictures of girls over 18 or under 18?

Ms Booyar —I would have to see that in the context of the pictures.

Senator JOYCE —I will tell you how the letter to the editor reads later on and some of the things in it. This is a quote from it:

Hello! At 71 years old, I’m a big fan of your magazine. I have a few suggestions.

Some of the girls look older that printed age (18).

Speaking for myself, I prefer to see girls that look closer to 18 rather than the older…

They cannot say ‘under 18’ because it is illegal.

…rather than the older worldly twenty something’s they sometimes tend to look like.

Hair in pigtails, school books, stuffed animals, and short schoolgirl skirts would help in this regard.

Tattoos are out! They undermine the illusion of innocence.

The editor of the magazine gets back to him and says:

Although we try to find the most innocent looking babes as possible sometimes we just cannot pass up a hot dirty, college-age cutie.

‘Although we try to find the most innocent-looking babes as possible’—so they are confirming exactly what they are trying to sell. When are we going to stop them?

Ms Booyar —I am not sure what your question is.

Senator JOYCE —The question is that it is quite obvious that we are playing a little bit of a game here. We know exactly what they are selling and they know exactly what they are selling. We are not doing our utmost to stop them. It is quite evident in the way that they advertise it and in the way that their own editors refer to what they sell that they know what they are selling. They are selling the picture and they are selling the intimation. In some cases we think they are actually selling under-age girls to dirty old men.

CHAIR —Senator Marshall, did you have some questions?

Senator BARNETT —I was interrupted and I would like to finish my questions regarding Art Monthly if I could.

CHAIR —You can do that.

Senator BARNETT—I hope you sense, Ms Booyar, and the department, that the motive behind the questions from this side is to protect the best interests of the child. So let us pursue Art Monthly for the moment. You wrote to the publisher on 8 July. When did you receive the document?

Ms Booyar —We received it on 11 July.

Senator BARNETT —On 11 July—and when was the assessment made and exactly what was the assessment?

Ms Booyar —On 16 July the Classification Board classified the July edition of Art Monthly Australia as unrestricted with the consumer advice ‘M—not recommended for readers under 15 years’.

Senator BARNETT —So it is not recommended for readers under 15.

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator BARNETT —If I am a newsagency what does that mean in terms of display, promotion and advertising of that publication?

Ms Booyar —As I understand, it can be displayed in the newsagency. It does not require a sealed wrapper.

Senator BARNETT —So that is still available, then, to any person under the age or over the age who wants to come in and peruse that document.

Ms Booyar —Yes. Unrestricted magazines are like that, yes.

Senator BARNETT —Can you understand how a lot of people feel very upset by that, knowing that there are what I would consider offensive, revolting photographs of underage children in the Art Monthly publication? One newsagency that I visited in Launceston, for example, refused to even display it because it was, in their view, restricted. Yet you as a «classification» «board» did not see fit to restrict it.

Ms Booyar —We used the guidelines and applied them. As per the guidelines, it was an unrestricted publication.

Senator BARNETT —This is a concern that I know Senator McGauran and others have. You are interpreting the guidelines in such a way as to perhaps be more liberal than others might be in their interpretation of them.

Ms Booyar—I am happy to hand up a set of the guidelines, but under the unrestricted section it does say that classification encompasses a wide range of material—and some material that may be offensive to some people.

Senator BARNETT—I am going to move on, but let me just say that I commend that newsagency in Launceston for what they did to protect the best interests of children. I think they did the right thing and I commend them on it. It was perhaps to the financial disadvantage of that small business.

Senator MARSHALL—Senator Barnett talked about the way you are interpreting the guidelines being different from what some people might expect. Has there been a change in the way you have interpreted the guidelines recently?

Ms Booyar —No.

Senator MARSHALL—The other issue that seems to come out is that you are only responsible for classifying submittable publications. So there are a whole range of other publications out there that do not require classification.

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator MARSHALL —But if they go over the line you do not know about that until someone brings it to your attention. Is that correct?

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator MARSHALL—That seems to be the problem that has been raised. The only other way to deal with that is to make everything submittable for publication.

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator MARSHALL —What would that mean?

Ms Booyar —We would be classifying every magazine that is published on a weekly or a monthly basis.

Senator MARSHALL —What is the percentage of submittable publications as opposed to all other publications generally?

Ms Booyar—I am not aware of that. I can take that on notice. The submittable publications are a very small percentage of the total market.

Senator MARSHALL —So the only way really to deal with that problem would be to look at every single publication and censor every publication.

Ms Booyar —I would say so.

Mr Wilkins—Can I just add to that? There is another way to deal with it, which is the way the law currently tries to deal with it, and that is to place the onus on people to come forward and have matters of a certain description classified. For example, submittable publications are defined as follows:

(a) are likely to cause the publication to be classified RC, or

(b) are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that the publication should not be sold or displayed as an unrestricted publication, or

(c) are unsuitable for a minor to see or read ...

So if you do not actually come forward and submit a submittable publication to the Classification Board then you are in danger of being prosecuted. Once again, it is under state legislation and some penalty would attach. So, yes, you could either go down the route of trying to classify everything or create a situation where people, in order to preserve their position, would err on the side of coming forward to have the matter looked at. I assume that is exactly the sort of psychology that went through the heads of the people running Art Monthly: ‘In order to be on the safe side of the law we should submit this for classification to avoid being taken to court and prosecuted.’ That is the other way in which this law could operate.

Senator MARSHALL —Senator Barnett also talked about the small business owner who refused to sell Art Monthly in that case. I guess that is another way in which people could actually refuse to sell things that they think should have been subject to—

Senator BARNETT—I just want to clarify that. They did not refuse to sell it; they refused to display it. If you were over 18 and you wanted a copy, I am sure that they would sell it to you.

Senator MARSHALL —It has been indicated that this is a problem right now. What has led to the problem occurring at this point?

Ms Booyar —I am not sure which problem you are referring to.

Senator MARSHALL—Senator McGauran, Senator Joyce and Senator Barnett have indicated that they are very dissatisfied with the state of things as they are now. What are you doing differently now from what you were doing before to bring about their concerns?

Ms Booyar —I am not aware that we are doing anything differently. We have had these guidelines for—

Senator McGAURAN —Exactly. You do not even know what the problem is and you are not doing anything about it.

Senator MARSHALL —How long have you been conducting the affairs of the «classification» «board» in the way you are doing now? How long has that been going on for?

Ms Booyar —The current publications guidelines have been in force since 2005, so we have been applying them in the same way since 2005.

Senator JOYCE —Just to correct the record, Madam Chair, you asked me the name of the magazine. The magazine is called Live Young Girls.

Senator MARSHALL —Do we know whether that magazine is—

Ms Booyar —It is a category 1 restricted magazine.

Senator MARSHALL —So it is a restricted magazine.

Ms Booyar —Yes. And it has to be sold in a sealed, opaque wrapper with only the masthead showing.

Senator McGAURAN —But that is the whole point: it is in category 1 but it is an RC.

Ms Booyar —I cannot ascertain whether it has overstated its classification unless I look at the magazine.

Senator MARSHALL —That magazine would have gone through the process. That is what you are saying.

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator McGAURAN —No; it would not have.

Senator MARSHALL —And the guidelines would have needed to have been refined.

Senator Wong—Senator McGauran, through you, Madam Chair, I appreciate your concern about these issues but it is very difficult for witnesses to be badgered by you whilst Senator Marshall is asking questions. You could show a modicum of courtesy in the conduct of the hearing.

Senator McGAURAN —Good point.

Senator MARSHALL —Has this process, which has been in place since 2005, ever been reviewed?

Ms Booyar —I am not aware that there was a review of the publications guidelines since 2005.

Senator MARSHALL —Were there any efforts by the previous government to review this process?

Ms Booyar —I think this is a question for policy.

Ms Davies—When you talk about the process, the way this scheme treats publications—in that it only requires those submittable publications to be put to the board for classification—has basically been the same since the scheme first came into effect, so it has been that way since the act and the scheme commenced in 1996. The guidelines for publications were reviewed I believe in the late 1990s and were then amended in 2005, but in fairly minor ways. There has not been a significant review of those guidelines that I am aware of.

Senator JOYCE —The pitch is not who is at fault; it is how do we fix it?

Senator Wong —I am not sure that that has been the tenor of the questioning.

Senator McGAURAN—I will be quick on just two points. Senator Marshall’s questions were excellent. Of course you cannot attempt to classify everything, and when clear breaches are brought to your attention you should act upon them. My point is that clear breaches have been brought to your attention and you have not acted. That is my point. Secondly, restricted category 1 is being abused by the distributors. They are popping RC into the black jackets, or worse. They are certainly not category 1 because category 1 says, ‘Actual sexual activity may not be shown in realistic depictions.’ Go to any service station or wherever they sell these black jackets and you will find that every magazine is not category 1. Now that has been brought to your attention.

Here is an example from a complainant. ‘I have a picture of two girls here,’ and this is before you. They are just head shots, I should add. ‘What is their age? No-one has put them above 11 years of age. No-one. And they are in the magazines and the complaint is before you, yet you hold firm in saying that these magazines, which are all listed, are all category 1. Category 1 is in the eye of the beholder, but it is quite clear what category 1 should be: no actual sexual activity may be shown in realistic depictions.’ Now, do you get it? Category 1 is being abused. It is not the actual guidelines itself; it is that the distributors are abusing the categories themselves right under your nose and it is being brought to your attention and you are doing nothing about it. There are two pictures of girls that people tell me are no more than 11 years old. I am happy to pass that to the chairman if she wants to involve herself. Hopefully that is the point I have been trying to make.

CHAIR —Are you tabling this, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN —Yes. I want to keep my copy. This is a copy of the complaint before you. The complainant has given it to me.

Ms Booyar —The complainant is from the organisation Kids Free 2B Kids?

Senator McGAURAN —Yes.

Ms Booyar —That complaint has been actively looked at. It has been actioned once already, and the complainant in question has made a further complaint. Only last week we received a number of the publications that she is complaining about. So it is actually under active consideration.

Senator McGAURAN—You have written to them in the past and just fobbed them off. Anyway, you now have that new complaint before you, and we will be keeping a watchful eye out.

Mr Griffin —Can I add something more to what has already been indicated in response to Senator Barnett’s question about Art Monthly. The initial responsibility for classifying that was the Classification Board. There has been no application to the review board to review that classification, so that is where the classification remains at the present time. There are a couple of mechanisms by which a review can be initiated. One is of course by the distributor, one is by an aggrieved person and another is by the Tasmanian minister responsible for censorship requesting the federal minister to lodge a review—and the federal minister must do so—or alternatively for the federal minister to apply for a review of the classification and then it would come to the review board. We would apply the legislative framework and the principles enshrined in the classification act to determine whether that classification ought to be maintained or increased. So that is another course by which that matter can be reviewed.

Senator McGAURAN —The classifications are fine. It is your enforcing of them.

Senator BARNETT—Thank you for that, Mr Griffin. I do appreciate you explaining it that way. It confirms again that there are some concerns with the process and with the system and the way things are working. If it had not been for a public hoo-ha about Art Monthly, that publication would never have come to your attention. It should have been classified and it was not classified until it came to your attention. In fact, I was one of those who brought it to attention, and I called the chairman at the time to make sure it was properly classified. Nevertheless—I have two other questions.

CHAIR —To these witnesses?

Senator BARNETT—Yes. I am not sure—it may be that the department will be best able to answer these questions. They are about video games. Is that in your bailiwick? At the moment we do not classify—

Ms Booyar —Depending on—

Senator BARNETT —Can I just clarify that. There is no classification of video games at the moment?

Ms Booyar —There is. Video games are classified using the film guidelines. The classifications range from G to MA15+.

Senator BARNETT —Yes, but there is no R classification of video games currently. Is that correct?

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator BARNETT —And that is the law.

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator BARNETT—This is the big question, and I guess it is for the department and/or the minister. Is consideration being given to the classification of video games, as in R classification for video games?

Ms Lynch—The possibility of the introduction of a classification of R for video games is a matter being discussed currently at the censorship ministers’ SCAG meeting, and it will be discussed at the next meeting in November.

Senator BARNETT —Was it discussed at the July SCAG meeting?

Ms Lynch —I will pass that to Ms Davies, who was there.

Ms Davies—Censorship ministers meet in conjunction with SCAG but they generally meet only at the first and last meetings of the year, so there was no censorship ministers meeting in July. At the March meeting, censorship ministers agreed in principle to conduct a consultation on whether there should be an R18+ classification for games and to release a discussion paper on that once ministers had agreed to that discussion paper.

Senator BARNETT —Where are we up to? Have we had a consultation? Where is the discussion paper?

Ms Davies—We have not yet had a consultation. A draft paper was prepared but ministers have not all agreed to that paper, so it will be discussed at the meeting.

Senator BRANDIS —When was the draft paper done?

Ms Davies —It was sent to ministers last month. I would have to get you the exact date.

Senator BARNETT —If you could. Which states have not agreed to that discussion paper?

Ms Davies—At this point, not all ministers have responded. There are caretaker ministers and that kind of thing. The paper was sent to ministers on 15 August and, at this point, Western Australia has not responded, the South Australian Attorney has not agreed, and the others have agreed.

Senator BARNETT —So Western Australia has not responded, South Australia has not agreed. Did they give reasons for their nonagreement?

Ms Davies —No, not specifically.

Senator BARNETT —Can you still pursue the discussion paper, notwithstanding South Australia’s nonagreement?

Ms Davies—That would be a matter for censorship ministers. It was developed as a paper to be released by ministers, so it will be something for them to determine in November.

Senator BARNETT—Is this discussion paper going to be available to the public? Is that where you are headed with this? And is it part of the consultation phase?

Ms Davies —That was the agreement. The original intention was that a paper would be released for public consultation.

Senator BARNETT —As in the discussion paper you are referring to?

Ms Davies —A paper, and a discussion paper has been developed to implement that.

Senator BARNETT —Can you provide us with a copy of the discussion paper?

Ms Davies —Until ministers have agreed to it, it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

Senator BARNETT —Who prepared the discussion paper?

Ms Davies—Victoria is the lead jurisdiction on this exercise, so Victoria took the lead in drafting it. But it was circulated amongst censorship officers and most officers had a greater or lesser degree of input.

Senator BARNETT —What is the title of the discussion paper?

Ms Davies —I think it is ‘R18+ for computer games’. I think it is as simple as that, but I could check the wording.

Senator BARNETT —So it is all about whether computer games can or should receive an R classification.

Ms Davies—It is intended to canvas the pros and cons of introducing an R18+ classification, the arguments for and against introducing that, and to seek community views on that issue.

Senator BARNETT —How will you be seeking these community views and who will be consulted?

Ms Davies—Obviously it will be a matter for censorship ministers whether they do agree to release the paper. The intention would be, if they do agree to release it, that it would be released via the internet and via direct contact from the different jurisdictions to stakeholders. So at our end we would be contacting the range of groups that we are aware of that have views on these issues, primarily from correspondence from the minister. So it would be people like families groups as well as the peak industry groups. Those kinds of organisations would be alerted to it and would be sent a copy.

Senator JOYCE —Mr Wilkins, you can see that the context of this issue has just got remarkably bigger.

Mr Wilkins—Yes, Senator. There are significant issues here, which the government is attempting to address. I am prepared to take up with the Attorney-General the issues you have raised. Some of them have to do with the censorship ministers conference, but I agree with you that some of them have to do with the way offences are framed. We can have a look at those issues.

Senator JOYCE —I am glad you agree.

Senator BARNETT—I do not want to delay the committee, but this is a very important area. You have alerted us to important information tonight, but we are not going to get further answers until the SCAG meeting in November, in terms of the discussion paper and the release of it. Is that correct?

Ms Davies —That is correct.

Senator BARNETT—Some of us are dumbfounded as to why we do not have an R rating for video games. Can you share any argument as to why we do not?

Ms Davies—In order to make any changes to the classification code and guidelines, including introducing a new classification, you need to have unanimous agreement from all state and territory ministers and the Commonwealth minister. To date, that has not been obtained.

Senator BARNETT —We have got a real problem here, haven’t we, because South Australia is opposing the position.

Ms Davies —The South Australian Attorney is on record on a number of occasions as opposing the introduction of an R18+ classification.

Senator BARNETT—We have a real problem, and this is something the Senate and the parliament is going to have to address. If we have one state opposing this, South Australia, then clearly we are not going to have any R rating of video games. That simply cannot occur as a matter of course legally.

Ms Davies —That is correct.

Senator BARNETT —Is monitoring of online games being undertaken by the board, the department or anybody else?

Ms Davies—Online content is regulated primarily under the Broadcasting Services Act, so consideration of online content, including online games, is primarily done by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. They investigate complaints about online content, including games. They can refer, and in some circumstances must refer, that content to the board for classification.

Senator BARNETT—That is what I am interested in. How does the relationship between ACMA and the board work? With the growth of the internet and online games and so on, is there a requirement for ACMA to refer it to the board for classification or does ACMA simply act on its own volition?

Ms Davies—Under the Broadcasting Services Act not all content is required to be classified—clearly. Certain content is prohibited—if it is, or would be, refused classification or if it is X18+, R18+ or MA15+ and does not have an age restriction system in place. For content that is hosted in Australia, if it has already been classified and is prohibited, or if ACMA considers that it would potentially be prohibited, then ACMA refers the material to the board for classification.

Senator BARNETT—Can you see the dilemma we have got? We have two umpires looking at a very similar type of arrangement for games—whether it be online games or computer games—and magazines. We have two different regulators, with two different regulatory regimes being applied to what many would consider to be a very similar incidence.

Ms Davies—For online content, ACMA apply the criteria in the classification scheme and refers it to the board. So there is actually one body, the Classification Board, making a decision about the classification level of that material. In the case of an online computer game, for example, they apply exactly the same criteria as it would apply to a computer game that you can buy in a shop. So the board applies the classification code and the classification guidelines for films and computer games when it is classifying an online game.

Senator BARNETT —Notwithstanding that there is no R rating for video games.

Ms Davies —It applies those guidelines as they exist.

Senator BARNETT —Thank you for that. I appreciate your feedback.

CHAIR—With the states and territories, you have said South Australia has not agreed. Can you tell us why there has been no response from Western Australia?

Ms Davies—The letters went out just at the beginning of the period when Western Australia went into caretaker. We got a response saying that there would not be a response till after the election, and I assume that the incoming Attorney-General has not yet had the opportunity to consider it.

CHAIR —Have you got any indications from Western Australia when that will happen?

Ms Davies —No, I have not.

Senator BARNETT —Can you table or take on notice the reasons for the South Australian opposition?

Ms Davies —Do you mean the opposition to the paper or the opposition to the R18+?

Senator BARNETT —R18+.

Ms Davies —I could find the reference to where the South Australian Attorney-General spoke about it in South Australian Hansard for you.

Senator BARNETT —That would be useful. Thank you for that.

Senator JOYCE—Apart from South Australia, are there any other states that are recalcitrant in this process? Obviously the community’s feeling is one of overwhelmingly wanting to get a result, especially on the intimations of underage pornography. Seeing that it is a Commonwealth issue and requires all the state ministers so that we can put pressure on them, can you tell us of any states or territories that do not have their shoulder completely to the wheel on this issue?

Ms Davies —On the issue of R18+ for games or, more broadly—

Senator JOYCE—On monitoring and classification, the charging of people who have illicit material on sale and the policing of it. I mean the whole gamut of issues surrounding the intimation of underage pornography.

Ms Davies—In relation to having a consultation process on R18+, there have been two changes of ministers since the last censorship ministers meeting. I have no indication of those changed ministers’ views, but all ministers agree that there should be a consultation. In relation to enforcement issues, I do not have any information on that and I do not know whether the operations branch does.

Senator JOYCE —Are there any problems that we should provide support for or pressure on to try to iron them out so that we can get a result?

Ms Williams—Issues are discussed within forums, and the community liaison officers provide information about compliance issues to state and territory censorship and enforcement offices through that mechanism.

Senator JOYCE —How many federal and state compliance officers are there? How many people are policing this?

Ms Williams —In the Community Liaison Scheme there are three officers.

Senator JOYCE —In the whole of Australia?

Ms Williams —Yes.

Senator Wong —That is Commonwealth.

Senator JOYCE —Do you think that is enough?

Senator Wong —I think that is Commonwealth. As I understood the evidence previously—we are back on the classifications, are we?

Senator JOYCE —Yes. Senator Brandis has some questions relating to them.

Senator Wong—I understood that the evidence was that, other than the issue that Ms Booyar went to, which was the application of the classifications, compliance was a matter for the state authorities.

Senator JOYCE —Okay.

Senator Wong —I could be corrected, but I think that was the evidence.

Senator JOYCE —Do we know how many state compliance officers there are?

Senator Wong—I certainly do not have that information. It would not necessarily be information the Commonwealth would have. That would be information the states and territories would have.

Senator JOYCE —In the meeting of respective ministers from the states, might you be able to find that out?

Ms Davies—It is not a matter of designated compliance officers. The legislative regimes of all the states and territories are offence-based regimes, so it is a matter for their police. However many police there are in a state or territory is, in effect, the number of officers who are charged with dealing with offences for classification—in the same way as any other offences.

Senator JOYCE—It is seeing the frustration that people can have. That Kids Free 2B Kids group can go out and pick this up. I am sure Julie is not a detective but she manages to pick up all this information which the appropriate bodies do not manage to pick up. Is she just extremely good at knowing where to shop? Why can she find it but others can’t?

Ms Lynch—That is possibly a difficult question for us to answer because it relates to police practices in the states and territories. The CLS officers visit a number of outlets—adult shops, petrol stations et cetera—and if they find serious breaches they refer them to state and territory enforcement agencies.

Senator McGAURAN —Do you keep a record of the visits that your people have undertaken in the last six months?

Ms Williams —Yes.

Senator MARSHALL—Going back to video games, and maybe I did not pick this up in the discussion. Are there people actually trying to get R-rated video games or computer games, however they are described, classified? Is that what is generating the need, or is it that we believe that for existing games the classification needs to go further so there is an R classification?

Ms Booyar —The classification board cannot classify content of a video game that exceeds the MA15+ classification, because there is not one available. Those classifications are available in other jurisdictions. I would suspect that gamers—

Senator MARSHALL —Other jurisdictions outside of Australia?

Ms Booyar —Yes.

Senator MARSHALL —So by not having an R classification we are in fact keeping out of the legal market anyway for anything above 15+.

Ms Booyar —As far as the board is concerned, we must refuse classification to anything that exceeds MA15+.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS —I appreciate that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR —All right, thank you.

[5.15 pm]

Update 2nd November 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Updates: October 2008  

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com