THE PRIVATE GLADIATOR has now been classified R18+. The 117min EXTENDED VERSION remains banned.

******

Gratuitous violent sex but great soundtrack. The Age 21.06.02

The distributor of Baise-Moi, Mark Spratt, of Potential Films, is still considering a legal challenge. After reading the report, he's not impressed by the arguments. And he's puzzled by the notion that the film has much to offer "in the pornographic genre". He said: "I would have thought it was the reverse."

He said he thought the report showed that the board "ignored public opinion, ignored critical arguments in favour of the film, and dealt with it incompetently, applying guidelines in a narrow way and strict way".

A submission from the Australian Family Association was considered at the meeting. The board took legal advice on whether it could be admitted. According to the report, the AFA's submission was "given little weight", because the authors had not seen the film. "They relied solely on the classification board's report and had not made further independent assessment of the film for themselves."

Mr Spratt said that the AFA's submission and its standing would be one of the matters his legal advisers would examine.

Nice tunes, shame about all the sex. SMH 20.06.02

The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, referred the film to the review board after it was granted an R18+ classification by the Office for Film and Literature Classification and seen by 40,000 cinemagoers.

The board said Mr Williams did not make a submission to the inquiry and it "did not give much weight" to a factually incorrect submission from the Australian Family Association.

******

THE PRIVATE GLADIATOR - EXTENDED VERSION, Antonio Adamo's adult remake of GLADIATOR was this week banned by the OFLC. THE EXTENDED VERSION runs 117min, whilst the print that Calvista had rated X in May runs 100min. Here is Private's description of this big-budget hardcore feature.

With a breathtaking set that incorporates a full sized reconstruction of the arena in Malta where Ridley Scott filmed the coliseum scenes from his "Gladiator", production advisors from the Italian traditional cinema industry, and over 200 extras; the movie will incorporate the latest digital effects, wild animals, and a vast array of authentic props including items from the original Gladiator production.

Private's most prestigious director Antonio Adamo, known for his Private Penthouse and Virtualia series, has virtually built a Roman city including tents, jail, bordello, Senate, baths, bedrooms and sauna in the huge studio in Budapest where the movie is being filmed. In a space that would comfortably accommodate a couple of Boeing 747s, the expression "Rome wasn't built in a day" has never been nearer the truth.


After being banned back in April, ROCCO ANIMAL TRAINER 6 has finally been given an X rating. It looks like Adultshop.com have removed around two minutes to escape an RC rating.

******

Details of the uncut release of HELLRAISER 2 are now included in the database.

Forget anonymous sex. There is nothing so quick, dirty and brusque as a close encounter with Australia's film censors. When they do it, they do it in the dark. Five weeks after the ban on the French film Baise-Moi, the Classification Review Board has not explained itself. Evidently it is struggling with the task.

There were political overtones in the way that Baise-Moi came to be reviewed by the board. The Rev Fred Nile and the Tasmanian conservative Brian Harradine were behind a lobbying campaign that also involved the National Party's De-Anne Kelly and the Liberals' Trish Draper, who said she had been contacted by the Festival of Light.

Whether or not the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General should have shown some spine and withstood this lobbying is beside the point. The rules allowed the Attorney-General to refer the R-rated film, already seen by 40,000 people, to the Classification Review Board for reassessment. The board's duty was to watch it anew and decide whether, to its eyes, Baise-Moi contained elements "beyond those set out in the classification guidelines and legislation". The scenes of rape, violence and actual sex obviously upset them and, as any judge of community standards might, they took steps.

******

In the US Anchor Bay have now combined six of their Fulci releases as double bill DVDs.

Volume One contains THE BEYOND and THE HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY.
Both of these have only ever been available in censored versions in Australia.

Volume Two contains THE NEW YORK RIPPER and MANHATTAN BABY. 
NYR was banned by the OFLC in the mid-80's and would most likely still be refused classification today. MB was released uncut in Australia by RCA\Columbia Home Video. This mid-80's tape has the title changed to POSSESSED.

Of particular interest to readers of this site is the Filmspeak debate to be held on Wednesday 19th June at the Lord Mayor's Reception Room, Sydney Town Hall. The forum runs from 4-6pm and entry is free. The following preview is taken from the Festival website.

CAUGHT IN THE NET: LEGISLATION, REGULATION AND THE FREEDOM TO WATCH

The federal government is expecting state governments to introduce legislation to support internet censorship, while the Office of Film and Literature Classification is conducting a review of the guidelines to the classification of films, videos, and computer games in Australia, proposing several areas of substantial change, including the adoption of a single set of classification standards that would cover films, videos, computer games, DVDs, internet content and CD-ROM films, and the possibility of an R rating for computer games.. Watch on Censorship believes in the right of adults to see, hear and read what they want, as stated in the Office of Film and Literature Classification Code, and argues that detailed and specific information needs to made available so adults can decide for themselves and their children what is appropriate rather than have this proscribed and pre-empted through prohibition of access by Classification. WOC also feels strongly that that right will be compromised in the extreme by any attempt to proscribe R-rated material from the internet as intended by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2001, which would be a profound violation of the freedom of speech of Australian adults.

They like to watch. SMH 01.06.02

Kathryn Reidy.
"Sometimes, I'll have porn magazines all around the room," she says. "One day my mum was visiting and I had to go around and cover everything with sheets of white paper before she arrived."

Des Clark

"There are those who say, 'You have no right to tell me what I can see or read, you have no right to do that.' At the other end there is a large body of people who say, `All that stuff should be banned, it shouldn't exist, you are far too liberal."'

Meg Clancy
"People think you become jaded or desensitised to this material but you don't really,"
 "Some of it is pretty awful. I've been here nearly six years and I'm still capable or being shocked or thinking, 'Gosh, that's something I've never seen before.'"
"It's all very businesslike. You've got be on the ball, you've got to be using the guidelines as you're watching the film. You're not just sitting down eating a choc-top. You've got to pay attention to all the elements [violence, sex, coarse language, adult themes, drug use, nudity] and so forth."

Paul Hunt
There are other diversions to ease the stress of the job. The computer games room, for example, is well equipped to provide sanctuary for some board members. "Some of the board members don't play regularly, but some do, so these are here for them," Hunt says of the room that contains an Xbox, GameCube and PlayStation 2. "There's some good gear in here, that's for sure. A lot of teenagers would love to get access to this and adults, too."

Classifiers can work alone but more often work in collaboration with others. A panel of three people is usually assigned to each new film. The office has two theatres for film screenings and six viewing rooms for videos and DVDs, but there are no snacks, drink holders or even comfy couches in sight. The classifiers sit in functional ergonomic chairs at a long, sloping desk and take detailed notes known as "blues" as the film unfolds. "We use blue paper because when the lights are low and we've got little desk lamps on, it's not so shiny," says Hunt. "We don't just sit down and look at something and go, 'I reckon that was M.' That's not how it works. We take notes and we use little codes and ticks and crosses and symbols when we get to an interesting or contentious bit, something that is talked about in the guidelines.

"Say you are watching a film, a fairly low-level one, someone might say 'shit', so you would note that down and put a little symbol for language and then write down: 'Bob walks in and says hello to Jane. Jane says shit.'"

Hunt says that when the film is over, the classifiers compare and crosscheck their notes. "You might say, 'Well, the elements I was concerned about were with violence, language.' Or, 'I thought that scene at 17 minutes was quite strong also.'

David Emery

"What they have done on occasion is try to second-guess what the classification is going to be. In order to speed things up when the product is delivered to them, they'll have a sticker put on it with our official logo, taking a bit of a punt. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't. Recently, with a game called Grand Theft Auto III, they put it out on the shelves for sale before it was classified. They had to withdraw it from sale, modify it and resubmit it."

******

This week saw Des Clark down in Canberra appearing before the Senate estimates committee. 
Brian Harradine gave him a grilling over a proposed R18+ rating for computer games.

The speakers here are:

Brian Harradine - Independent (TAS)
Chris Ellison - Liberal (WA)
Chris Schacht - Labor (SA)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 
Official Committee Hansard 
SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 
Consideration of Budget Estimates 
MONDAY, 27 MAY 2002 CANBERRA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

Office of Film and Literature Classification 

CHAIR—I welcome the representatives of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. 

Mr Clark—I wish Senator Cooney well. Over many generations the OFLC has welcomed his questions, and also Senator McKiernan’s. 

Senator COONEY—Thank you. It is not a discourtesy that I am leaving the hearing now, it is just that I cannot stand the heat that comes from Senator Harradine and Senator Schacht. It is just too bloody a conflict, so I am off.

CHAIR—Thank you, Senator Cooney. Shall we begin with Senator Harradine? 

Senator HARRADINE—Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief because these matters were canvassed during the additional estimates hearings in February. Mr Clark, could you let the committee know what is happening to classification guidelines for computer games?

Mr Clark—At this stage, the draft guidelines for computer games and films and video are being rewritten to go to ministers in a draft form in July. The draft is combining the guidelines for those mediums into one set, apart from the R4 computer games, which do not exist. There is also an issue we need to address, if the markings do not change, that the G(8+) and PG markings above G would also have to be managed. At this stage we have a set which combines at that level, but at the R level there is no recommendation in relation to computer games. 

Senator HARRADINE—What are you saying? 

Mr Clark—What I am saying is that, if there were, we are building the guidelines in general to deal with convergent media, and that is part of the purpose of the exercise. In dealing with the guidelines, and they are not in a final form yet, we will be looking at talking about interactivity in particular, because that is an element that increasingly is coming into film. So in a sense it does not matter whether it is a computer game or an interactive film, there are issues of interactivity we must deal with in drafting guidelines for the future. And that could potentially, if ministers were to make that decision, accommodate an R-rated computer game. 

Senator HARRADINE—The draft guidelines were prepared by whom? 

Mr Clark—The original draft guidelines were prepared within the office— 

Senator HARRADINE—Quite so, yes. And the final draft guidelines? Or at least not the final ones— 

Mr Clark—The current draft is also being prepared in the office but that would, once ministers have seen it and before it is finally agreed, go to a language expert to work through the concepts. 

Senator HARRADINE—Why won’t they go to the people?

Mr Clark—The original draft guidelines have been to the people. Ministers at this stage have asked us to write a clearer set of guidelines. They are not guidelines that are changing the levels and there has been a public consultation and we have been asked to do some targeted consultation in relation to the second draft, which will not change the intent. 

Senator HARRADINE—Excuse me, I must have missed something. I did not realise that there were public hearings conducted by the OFLC in respect of the draft guidelines similar to the public hearings that are engaged upon by the ABA, for example. 

Mr Clark—The office has not conducted any public hearings, Senator, and it is not part of the agreed process in relation to the guidelines review. 

Senator HARRADINE—Why? I mean this is a democracy and people need to have a say about it. I am sure you would get a range of viewpoints expressed and that they would be an important assisting aid to the OFLC in preparing draft guidelines. 

Mr Clark—I think I canvassed this with you at the last meeting. The censorship ministers agreed that we go to a new set of guidelines. The original procedure agreed by ministers did not include public hearings and so we proceeded in good faith to a public consultation. The public consultation invited submissions from the community. Virtually at the end of that public process, there was a request from some people to have public hearings. Those people who requested public hearings had in fact made submissions to the guidelines review anyway. When we went to ministers with the report, ministers asked us to look at the process and the procedure for guidelines reviews. That is not covering this one, but certainly for future reviews we would be looking at that possibility. 

Senator HARRADINE—Once these guidelines are approved—if they are approved—they will be in force for a considerable period of time. How long is it since the last ones were in force? 

Mr Clark—There was an amendment to the guidelines in 2000, which was the X amendments. Prior to that—my copy does not have a date—I think it was 1995 but I will have to check that date. 

Senator HARRADINE—I put it to you again that that may be a matter of interest to the Commonwealth and state ministers. When did you say you are going to put it to them? 

Mr Clark—In July. 

Senator HARRADINE—In July. Who will be at that meeting? 

Mr Clark—The meeting will be attended by the ministers responsible for censorship in the states and territories—most often that is the Attorney-General—and their officers, the department, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the OFLC. Occasionally, New Zealand and Norfolk Island attend. 

Senator HARRADINE—Do you have an up-to-date list of those ministers who will be attending? 

Mr Clark—I have an up-to-date list of the ministers. Whether they all attend or not, I cannot predict. 

Senator HARRADINE—Yes, I understand that. From the Commonwealth, how many will be attending—only the Attorney-General? 

Mr Clark—From the Commonwealth? 

Senator HARRADINE—Yes. 

Mr Clark—Yes. 

Senator HARRADINE—In respect of the discussions, is it not a fact that a Dr Brand had some say in the development of these guidelines? 

Mr Clark—No. Dr Brand was only commissioned to do the assessment of the submissions to the guidelines review and he only came on board after the public consultation process. He had no part in the preparation of the draft guidelines. 

Senator HARRADINE—Those were the draft guidelines upon which a number of people made submissions. He then, as I understand it, made an assessment of the public submissions. In that particular case, the terms of reference—as it were—were in fact limited only to the submissions that were made. His terms of reference were only directed to the submissions which were made— 

Mr Clark—That is correct. 

Senator HARRADINE—and were not a request to him to advise the government or the OFLC on what should be regarded as proper public policy in regard to the guidelines.

Mr Clark—He was asked to look at the submissions and look at the guidelines with the submissions and, in writing his report, he made a series of recommendations. He has made no contribution to writing a new set of guidelines and the recommendations are merely that: they are recommendations that have no authority beyond that.

Senator HARRADINE—I go to the question of the film that was most recently reviewed by the Classification Review Board. When a unanimous decision like that is taken by the Classification Review Board, what action is taken by you and the OFLC to ensure that their future actions in classifying films reflect the unanimous interpretation of the guidelines as expressed by the Classification Review Board? In other words, in this particular case you had—was it 5-4 or 5-6? 

Mr Clark—5-6. 

Senator HARRADINE—You had six members of the board voting to give that film an R classification and you had five members that voted the other way, that it be refused classification. That was subsequently referred to the Classification Review Board. The Classification Review Board unanimously made a decision that the film should be refused classification. In making its decision:

 ... the Review Board took into account the combination of:

 • strong depictions of violence 

• sexual violence 

• frequent actual, detailed sex scenes; and 

• scenes which demean both women and men. 

Such depictions cannot be accommodated within the R18+ classification. That is the decision of the Classification Review Board. What action do you take and what action does the Classification Review Board take to ensure that the classification— 

Senator SCHACHT—At least there were six decent people— 

CHAIR—Senator Schacht, if we let Senator Harradine finish, I will come back to you. 

Senator HARRADINE—What action do you and the OFLC take to ensure that those people interpret the guidelines in accordance with that interpretation placed on it by the film board of review? 

Mr Clark—I think I need to say that the members of the board are statutory appointees who are appointed to make decisions independently, away from influence, and therefore I cannot direct board members how to make decisions; I can direct them how to do their work but not how to make decisions. The board can take into account and take note of decisions made by the review board, but the legislation and the nature of their appointment does not require them to do anything other than take note of those and proceed to make decisions that they consider to be within the guidelines, the code and the act. 

Senator HARRADINE—How does this square with the clear indication that such depictions, the depictions I described, cannot be accommodated within the R18+ classification? That is the decision of the review board. I mean it is a bit like the High Court. Judges are also statutory officials, are they not? 

Mr Clark—Certainly. 

Senator HARRADINE—Would it be wise or unwise for them to ignore the decisions of a higher court?

Mr Clark—I am saying that certainly the board can take note of decisions by the review board, but they are not binding on them in making their independent decisions, and it is not a court. 

Senator HARRADINE—Of course they are not binding upon them, but it is not binding upon a lower court judge to have regard to what the superior court has said. We are talking about questions which go to the area as a whole, that is to say, the classification scheme as a whole. You have individual board members and you have a review. It is somewhat similar to the court system. Are you saying that it would be quite prudent for the board members not to take notice of what the film board of review have said? 

Mr Clark—No, my comment was that certainly the board should take into account decisions made by the review board. I suspect that if one goes back to the decision on the film Romance—which was a decision of the review board—that was taken into account. The process, though, is that the Classification Board must make its own decisions and make them independently, having regard to information that is presented to it. In the decision here, the Classification Board made a majority R18+ decision and its report gives its reasons why it made that decision. The Classification Review Board, in coming to a different decision, has not yet produced its reasons. We will look at those reasons when they are available to consider but, at the end of the day, the Classification Board still has to make its decision, the Classification Review Board has made its decision, and that is the process—that is the way is the system works. 

Senator Ellison—Madam Chair, I suppose one aspect to Senator Harradine’s question, in comparing the situation of a higher court versus a lower court, is whether the Classification Board has regard to the decisions made by the review board when it considers classifying a film. Are those previous decisions by the review board used as precedents perhaps? In this case, will the Classification Board have regard to a decision by the review board setting a precedent for future classification for other films?

CHAIR—As a precedent? 

Senator Ellison—Yes, I think that is another angle to Senator Harradine’s question, which Mr Clark might want to have a look at. 

Senator SCHACHT—Is there anything in the act? 

Senator Ellison—That is a good question too, isn’t it? Ask that. 

Senator SCHACHT—There is nothing in the act. As I understand it, you have got to let the decision of the review board take precedence. Show me which section of the act says that. 

CHAIR—Perhaps we might even give Mr Clark an opportunity to respond. 

Mr Clark—As I have indicated already—I think twice—the board does have regard to decisions made by the review board. There is an illustration of that. The fact is that the act does not require consideration of precedents. There is no reference in the act at all to that happening. So, under the board’s interpretation, with me as part of it, we must continue to make with the tools we are given—the guidelines, the code and the act—decisions in relation to the classification of material that is presented to us.

CHAIR—Thank you, Mr Clark. Senator Harradine, do you have anything further? 

Senator HARRADINE—Yes. Coming back to the R-rated video games, I did not quite understand what you meant. You are not recommending that there be R-rated computer games in Australia?

Mr Clark—There is not a recommendation. Dr Brand, in his report, has supported that notion. We have not made a recommendation to ministers in relation to R-rated computer games. 

Senator HARRADINE—But you are now referring to Dr Brand. 

Mr Clark—No, there is not a recommendation for an R rating for computer games. 

Senator HARRADINE—In other words, the state censorship ministers will not have before them a recommendation for R-rated computer games? 

Mr Clark—It is an issue that ministers will be invited to consider and to talk about, but there is no recommendation at this stage from the OFLC—not to say that there may not be in the future—in relation to an R rating for computer games. But it is an issue that has been highlighted in the review documents. It has been commented on by Dr Brand and is an issue that the ministers will consider in due course. 

Senator HARRADINE—Have they been advised about the interactive nature and extremely violent and pornographic type of material in the R-rated computer games? 

Mr Clark—We have not made any comment to ministers in relation to R-rated computer games because we could not judge what an R-rated computer game is. There is no guideline as such for that. 

Senator HARRADINE—But you have prepared a guideline just in case, haven’t you? 

Mr Clark—There is a guideline that has the potential, if ministers decide on such a matter, to be used for that purpose. 

Senator HARRADINE—But I thought you just said that you had not. I must have misunderstood you there. Didn’t you say that you were not able to describe to the ministers what is contained in the R-rated computer game classification? 

Mr Clark—At this stage there is no R rating for computer games, so we cannot describe a game— 

Senator HARRADINE—I understand that but, with due respect, you are playing with words. 

Mr Clark—It is not my intention to play with words. I am trying to be very clear in my responses. 

Senator HARRADINE—Mr Clark, you said to the committee that you could not describe what was contained in an R-rated computer game. 

Mr Clark—That is correct. 

Senator HARRADINE—Of course you cannot describe it now because there is no such classification. But you said before that you have prepared such a classification. 

Mr Clark—We are preparing a draft guideline at the R18+ level which deals with convergent media and interactivity. It is very difficult now with some material. Some film has potentially the same elements as an interactive game, so the division between a game and a film will be blurred increasingly as the technology develops. We are looking in our guidelines at whether R18+ could deal with an interactive film and consequentially with a computer game, but that issue is at the side at the moment. 

Senator HARRADINE—Is there a recommendation to the ministers that the interactive film you speak of should be given a classification?

Mr Clark—The recommendation is not formulated at this stage but we are taking to ministers a set of guidelines that can deal with convergent media, which includes interactive film. 

Senator HARRADINE—Will that be given different guidelines to those in existence now for R-rated films? 

Mr Clark—There will be an element within the guidelines. It may be dealt with more generically in the introduction or in the beginning of each section which deals with elements of interactivity. Yes, we will be dealing with interactivity in the draft guidelines. 

Senator HARRADINE—So you could end up with narrower guidelines, if you like, for the R-rated material than is currently the case, given that there is interactivity involved?

Mr Clark—We are not seeking to change the levels, but we are seeking to be able to deal with the convergent nature of entertainment media now as it is emerging. The intent is that interactivity, as an element, will receive a descriptor or guideline which requires it to be dealt with in a certain way—which would be potentially different to what would be just a straightforward R18+ movie. 

Senator HARRADINE—So with interactivity you could have a film with, for example, violent or extremely violent interactivity and this would be far more impactful than the current film without interactivity? 

Mr Clark—I am trying to think of an example which might assist. A game was refused classification late last year. It was refused classification because in the interactive segment of the game you could achieve a reward if you were to assault and rob a prostitute after having hired her for sexual purposes. The board considered that the combination of violence, sex and rewards was such that the game should be refused classification. That is the sort of measure that we can build into the guidelines to deal with that sort of inappropriate content. 

CHAIR—It being after 11 o’clock the committee will adjourn for the evening and resume at nine o’clock tomorrow morning with consideration of budget estimates for the Office of Film and Literature Classification. I thank everybody for their assistance with the committee today.

Committee adjourned at 11.01 p.m.

***

The following day saw Senator Chris Schacht trying to get more details on the banning of BAISE-MOI. 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 
Official Committee Hansard 
SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 
Consideration of Budget Estimates 
TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2002 CANBERRA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

Office of Film and Literature Classification

CHAIR—The committee will now resume this public hearing of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee with the examination of the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General’s portfolio, recommencing with the Office of Film and Literature Classification. I will reread the opening statement so that all those matters are on the public record. On 14 May 2002 the Senate referred to the committee the particulars of proposed budget expenditure for 2002-03 for the Attorney-General’s and the Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs portfolios. The committee will consider the agencies as close as possible to the order in which they appear on the circulated agenda. The committee has authorised the recording and rebroadcasting of its proceedings in accordance with the rules contained in order of the Senate dated 31 August 1999. The committee has agreed to the date of 5 July 2002 for the receipt of answers to questions taken on notice and any additional information. I remind everyone present to please turn mobile phones either off or down whilst you are in the hearing room. I welcome Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison, the Minister for Justice and Customs and Minister representing the Attorney-General, and Mr Cornall and officers of the Attorney- General’s Department and associated agencies. I remind officers that the Senate has resolved that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committees unless the parliament has expressly provided otherwise. I also remind officers that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth or a department of a state shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a minister. Witnesses are reminded that the evidence given to the committee is protected by parliamentary privilege and I also remind you that the giving of false or misleading evidence to the committee may constitute a contempt of the Senate. I understand neither the minister nor Mr Cornall have any opening remarks they wish to make. We ended last night in consideration of the budget estimates for the Office of Film and Literature Classification. I think Senator Harradine was asking questions. 

Senator HARRADINE—Does Mr Clark wish to conclude his answer? 

Mr Clark—Don’t ask me what the question was. 

Senator HARRADINE—I want to ask about the Brand report and the desire that there be, as far as possible, transparency in the development of guidelines and so on. By the way, I am a bit brighter this morning. I apologise if I suggested you were playing with words. That concerned me overnight. I do apologise for that. 

Mr Clark—Thank you, Senator; I appreciate that.

Senator HARRADINE—I am wondering about the Brand report, because it had fairly narrow terms of reference. In other words, he was required to assess those submissions that were made. Can we have a copy of that report? 

Mr Clark—Yes. That report has been available for some time now. 

Senator HARRADINE—On the Web? 

Mr Clark—Yes, but if you would like a hard copy we can certainly provide that. 

Senator HARRADINE—As I understand it, there are two Brand reports. One is the original that related to the summary, and I thought the other one related to recommendations as well. 

Mr Clark—No, Senator, there is only one report, which is his analysis of the submissions and his recommendations. 

Senator HARRADINE—Thank you, and is that on the web site? Mr Clark—That is on the web site. 

Senator HARRADINE—On the question of studies being done about the effect of computer games on those who are hooked on playing them, including children, what later evidence have you researched? 

Mr Clark—The research that the office itself has is not on the effects; it is really on community opinion and attitude. The latest I personally have looked at is really a research review from Nordicom, which is the UNESCO clearing house at, I think, Goteborg University. That summary would indicate that the research is still inconclusive in terms of effects but that there may be a very small percentage within the make-up of the personality that could be affected by it, and that other social factors across the spectrum of a person’s life experience would be far more compelling than the very small percentage of evidence that would appear to be there. That is the latest I have seen, and I think it was from late last year. 

Senator HARRADINE—As you know, any parent would note the difference if one of the family in a reasonably big family is more hooked than the others on computer games. One can see the difference. Could you provide the committee with what evidence the research department of OFLC has on the effects of computer games? We are talking about the interactive nature of the games and in the context of the possibility of an R-rated computer game. 

Mr Clark—We do not have any evidence as such. I think there is the difference between the effects research that is carried out by others, for which the indicators that we have are inconclusive, and the work that we do, which is about community attitudes and community views. So the board is there, in a sense, to reflect the views of the community. So the research we have are things like community assessment panels, which is specifically about film, of course, but they would indicate community views. So, in giving a rating to a game, we are giving a rating not necessarily on the impact of the effects but on the impact of the content and how members of the community will gauge that, families and parents in particular, in guiding their children into games that are appropriate to their age and their experience. Therefore, parents should be steering their children away from games with violence, which are rated MA(15+). It is part of that family dialogue, as opposed to the research that can help us to say a game belongs in that category. On the other hand, there is in the marketplace a spectrum of games that have varying degrees of violence or other content. 

CHAIR—Thank you, Senator Harradine. 

Mr Clark—There was a question yesterday in relation to reviews of the guidelines and I was not sure on dates. Computer games were last reviewed in 1994, film and video in 1996 and there was a revision for the guidelines in 2000. CHAIR—Thank you for clarifying that. 

Senator SCHACHT—Who was the person who made the complaint to the Attorney- General that led to him referring the movie Baise-Moi to the review panel to review its R18 classification? 

Mr Clark—I am not aware of the particular. I am aware there were some requests from individuals and organisations that went to the Attorney, but I cannot answer the entirety of that question. 

Senator Ellison—It was a subject of the last estimates, I think. 

Senator HARRADINE—Not this movie. 

Senator Ellison—Sorry, it was another movie. I thought it was raised last estimates. I think the Attorney is on record as saying there was community concern, that a number of concerns were expressed, but I am not aware in particular of those; so I will take it on notice.

Senator SCHACHT—Is it a requirement under the act that the minister has to announce or table or indicate either who they were or what numbers of requests he got to refer a classification decision of the board to the review board? 

Mr Clark—No.

Senator SCHACHT—It is very strange. I think the parliament has been very deficient in allowing a clause to go through which says the Attorney-General on any excuse—and then says it is community standards—can refer a decision of the board to the review panel. The minister has taken that on notice. Minister, do you know whether the Attorney-General got one request, five requests, 25 or 2,000? 

Senator Ellison—I will take that on notice. I am not aware of that detail. 

Senator SCHACHT—Mr Clark, the minister never consulted you as head of the office about his decision to put it to the review panel? 

Mr Clark—No. The Classification Review Board is an entirely separate body in the sense of the decision making. 

Senator SCHACHT—But when you gave it a classification of R18, did the minister at any time suggest to you he thought that that was a wrong decision? 

Mr Clark—No. 

Senator SCHACHT—Did any other minister in the government indicate by correspondence or phone call they thought it was a wrong decision? 

Mr Clark—No. 

Senator SCHACHT—How many other members of parliament, if any, wrote to you saying that the classification by the board was wrong? 

Mr Clark—Not to me. 

Senator SCHACHT—So there was none to the Office of Film and Literature Classification from any member of parliament? 

Mr Clark—No. 

Senator Ellison—I do not think that is unusual, Senator Schacht. I might just say that if a member had a concern I think they would write to the minister responsible, which would be the Attorney-General. That is a question that I am taking on notice, to see what communications he received. 

Senator SCHACHT—So will you take that on notice again. Let us make sure we get this clear: the question is that you will provide details of how many members of parliament wrote. I want not just a generic answer saying he received 21 comment submissions but actually who he got them from. Senator Ellison—I would place a caveat on that last one, because— 

Senator SCHACHT—Oh, yes. Here it comes. 

Senator Ellison—The people who made that might not want that to be made public. It might have been in confidence to the Attorney. There is a privacy aspect. Some of the people might have— 

Senator SCHACHT—You are developing a star chamber system. 

Senator Ellison—No, it is not. It is called courtesy to those people who sent communications to the Attorney-General. You asked for a number before. Now you are asking for the identities of the people. I will certainly take that on notice. There is no question of that, but whether we will provide the identities of the people who contacted the Attorney- General that is something which the Attorney-General will decide.

Senator SCHACHT—Again, this is a deficiency in the act. The parliament has passed the act and has to take responsibility for a deficiency in which unknown people or numbers of people or community organisations, under the claim of privacy, do not wish to be identified as complaining about the movie. 

Senator ELLISON—I have not said anybody does not want to be identified. But we had a privacy commissioner here yesterday. He was there for a very good reason. There are some individual Australians who write to a member of parliament who might not want that to be made public, for very good reasons. 

Senator SCHACHT—But they are asking for a public process to take a decision in a democracy to ban something, to prohibit something. I think it is not an unreasonable request that, for transparency reasons, the community know who is complaining. 

Senator ELLISON—I will take that up with the Attorney and get back to the committee. S

enator SCHACHT—Okay. Mr Clark, several weeks ago you gave me the courtesy of taking a phone call from me and were quite forthcoming in information you gave to me about process of the office and this particular case. You told me, and it is now on the record elsewhere, that the board voted 6-5 to give it an R18 classification, which I think Senator Harradine confirmed last night. Is that correct? 

Mr Clark—That is correct. 

Senator SCHACHT—Can you inform us who the six were and who the five were? 

Mr Clark—The practice of the office has not been to give the names of how individuals voted on the board. I would prefer to maintain that protocol. It is an issue that the board feel strongly about. In their view, they do not want to be the subject of undue pressure from any direction and therefore they prefer the actual voting pattern of individuals to be private. 

Senator SCHACHT—Last night Senator Harradine raised an issue—and the minister actually responded—about the Classification Review Board. He said it should be taken as a superior ‘court’ in that you should now take note of the precedent they have set. But if it is any sort of court—using Senator Harradine’s view—judges identify themselves as to which way they vote in a decision. If it is a full bench, they identify 4-3, or 3-2. If that is good enough for Senator Harradine to raise in that argument, why isn’t it good enough for the board to identify 6-5? 

Mr Clark—The board are appointed as members of the community to represent the community. They are not lawyers and they are not judges. They are community representatives there to broadly reflect community views. It is a very different situation to a court. As I say, it is their preference that that remains that way. They feel less vulnerable, if you like, to undue pressure.

Senator SCHACHT—I disagree with Senator Harradine, though he raised it as a point, about precedent. This is not a court. But you say ‘represent community standards’. I am a member of the community. There are 19.5 million Australians out there, and you are taking decisions that affect what they can see, hear and read in their daily lives. Don’t they have a right to know which members of the board are voting on various decisions and therefore make a judgment about your performance? 

Mr Clark—As I say, the issue is one where it is the preference of the board. I have talked about this with them in terms of making available the names on voting, and it is something that they prefer not to do.

Senator SCHACHT—Can you take it on notice that I would ask that the board come back either on notice or at the next hearing, at which I will not be present, with a statement explaining why they think it is preferable not to identify themselves as to how they voted. 

Mr Clark—Certainly. I am very happy to do that. 

Senator SCHACHT—Can you tell me the names of the four members of the review board who reviewed Baise-Moi. I can’t say the meaning in English; I got a ruling from the President of the Senate the other day that you can say it in French but if you say it in English it is unparliamentary. It is the most absurd ruling that I have seen that you cannot say it in English, but anyone can say it in French and it means the same thing. Nevertheless, I cannot say it, apparently. 

Senator HARRADINE—I raise a point of order. I have not seen the President’s ruling, but a reflection has been made on her. She is not here to defend herself, and it is quite inappropriate for Senator Schacht to reflect on the President or a ruling. 

Senator SCHACHT—On that point of order, when the President made her statement in the Senate on the last Thursday night—the last day of sitting—I responded and made it very clear that, though I accepted her ruling, I disagreed with it very strongly as being absurd. 

Senator HARRADINE—This forum is to seek information from the officers. 

CHAIR—Indeed it is. Senator Schacht, I do not think it is appropriate for you to reflect on a ruling of the President. If you wish to make any imputations in relation to that— 

Senator SCHACHT—I did nothing more than I did in the Senate. I will move on. Who were the four on the review board who dealt with Baise-Moi? 

Mr Clark—The four members on the panel were the convenor of the review board, Ms Maureen Shelley; Mr Jonathan O’Dea, who is the deputy convenor; Ms Robin Harvey; and Ms Kathryn Smith. 

Senator SCHACHT—With regard to Ms Shelley, from the annual report which ended 30 June— 

Mr Clark—She in fact has been appointed since that time. 

Senator SCHACHT—Were any of those members previously on the Classification Board itself. 

Mr Clark—Kathryn Smith was previously a member of the Classification Board. 

Senator SCHACHT—Minister, is there any particular reason why someone would go from being a member of the Classification Board to being on the Classification Review Board? 

Senator Ellison—I have no knowledge as to that or the reasons behind it. 

Mr Clark—When Ms Smith resigned from the board, she advised me that she wanted to do other things in her life. She was a part-time member, but she did not wish to continue that longer commitment to the board.

Senator SCHACHT—Has it happened before that someone has resigned from the Classification Board and then been appointed to the Classification Review Board?

Mr Clark—No, it has not happened.

Senator SCHACHT—Minister, is there a situation here where you might say that someone is at one level and then gets appointed to the review board? It is not so much a conflict of interest, but they have had one experience and then they go on to be on the review board, judging their previous peers’ performance.

Senator Ellison—It happens every day in the judiciary.

Senator SCHACHT—We are not dealing with the judiciary, and I have accepted that point. 

Senator Ellison—It is an administrative process. It is quite normal for that to occur. People are involved in one body and then are promoted to another body of review which is involved in reviewing the previous body on which they sat. In the administrative law, in the administrative process, you see that all the time.

Senator SCHACHT—Mr Clark, the decision of the review board was 4-0. Is that correct? 

Mr Clark—That is correct. 

Senator SCHACHT—Therefore, on this occasion, I know exactly how four members of the review board voted and, if it was a unanimous decision of the Classification Board, I would know exactly how the members of that board voted. So we do not have a decision where it is automatic that you refuse to divulge how people voted. If it is unanimous one way or the other, we know exactly how they voted. Isn’t that an inconsistency in your position? 

Mr Clark—It would appear that way, but I still express the view that the board has taken. I have taken on notice your request, and we will come back with that statement. 

Senator SCHACHT—And you will take on board the obvious inconsistency that, if it is a unanimous decision of either the Classification Board or the Classification Review Board, we all know exactly how they voted. 

Mr Clark—Yes, I understand that. 

Senator SCHACHT—Again, Mr Clark, I acknowledge that you were very generous in the time you gave me in explaining some of the process some weeks ago. I asked you at that time—and I will ask it here because I think it ought to go on the record so that people understand it—once the review board made the decision, who passed the decision on in administrative terms to each of the states to carry it out? 

Mr Clark—The obligations under the act are that the applicant be informed and the original applicant be informed. The OFLC advised the states and territories of that decision that afternoon. In addition to that, the original applicant for the classification has advised me that he advised the cinemas that day of the review board decision. 

Senator SCHACHT—Who did that? 

Mr Clark—Mr Spratt, who is the original applicant for the classification of the film. 

Senator SCHACHT—So the person who sought a classification, once the review board had turned it over, then himself informed the cinemas who were showing it; is that correct? 

Mr Clark—That is what he advised me. 

Senator SCHACHT—Who are the people that you advise in each state? Do you send a letter to the Attorney-General of each state or to the censorship minister? Where do you send the message? 

Mr Clark—The message goes to the censorship official in each state and territory.

Senator SCHACHT—We have a censorship official in each state? 

Mr Clark—There is an officer who is involved with the classification responsibilities of the states and territories. 

Senator SCHACHT—For example, in New South Wales who is that officer? 

Mr Clark—In New South Wales it is Mr Andrew Osborne, who is from the Attorney- General’s Department. 

Senator SCHACHT—What knowledge of censorship does he have? 

Mr Clark—He is the officer responsible for the New South Wales act and he is responsible for the liaison with the Office of Film and Literature Classification. 

Senator SCHACHT—So has he been delegated that job by the New South Wales government? 

Mr Clark—By the department, yes. 

Senator SCHACHT—By the department? 

Mr Clark—By the Attorney-General’s Department; he is a member of the department. 

Senator SCHACHT—You called him a censorship officer. 

Mr Clark—It is a curious situation that there is a hangover: we haven’t got to calling them classification officials yet. 

Senator SCHACHT—Would you take it on notice to provide to the committee the name of the person in each state and territory who is the delegated officer that you contact to let them know the outcome of a decision? 

Mr Clark—Certainly. 

Senator SCHACHT—Is that officer then required—by their complementary legislation or the act they have to establish the censorship regime in Australia—to inform the police to go and check that cinemas are not showing it? 

Mr Clark—The Commonwealth responsibility is finished once that advice is given to the states and territories. The procedures adopted by each state and territory will vary, and I am afraid that I would not be competent to comment on the procedures adopted at the enforcement level within the states and territories.

Senator SCHACHT—Mr Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, made it quite clear in public statements that he thought the decision of the review board was wrong; I think he made more colourful descriptions than that but let us just say that he disagreed with it. He has a piece of legislation that says his state administration has to carry out the decision of the review board. 

Mr Clark—That is correct. 

Senator SCHACHT—But, if he wanted to constitutionally amend that, he has every right to do so. 

Mr Clark—The enforcement legislation is state legislation. 

Senator SCHACHT—So, if he wanted to amend it, it might mean the end of a national system of censorship or whatever you want to call it. If one state decided to do that, which constitutionally they are able to do, that would be the end of the national system.

Mr Clark—It may not mean the end of it; I would be reluctant to see that happen. Some states have reserve powers in relation to classification matters, but not all states. 

Senator SCHACHT—But, under the Constitution of Australia, no power was given to the federal parliament.

 Mr Clark—Correct. 

Senator SCHACHT—Other than importing. Do you inform Customs of all your decisions? 

Mr Clark—Customs and OFLC have an agreement in relation to providing them advice under their legislation; we provide that advice to them on application. Additionally, they have access to our web site and our classification decisions. 

Senator SCHACHT—Is there a dedicated officer in Customs who is, in generic terms, a censorship officer?

Mr Clark—No, there is not. 

Senator SCHACHT—Who do you send the information to in Customs, or do you say, ‘Read the web site’? 

Mr Clark—We do not directly send information unless it is a specific application; otherwise they do have access to our database. 

Senator SCHACHT—Would they have the right to go and seize copies of Baise-Moi? 

Mr Clark—They would seize copies of Baise-Moi if they were imported, yes. 

Senator SCHACHT—Copies are already in the country. Do they have the power now to go and seize them? 

Mr Clark—Not as I understand it, but once again it is really a question for Customs as to the exercise of their powers. 

Senator SCHACHT—As the movie now does not have any classification at all, is it illegal for any of the distributors to still hold a copy of the movie in their possession? 

Mr Clark—My understanding is that to possess a copy of the film is not illegal but to exhibit it is illegal.

Senator SCHACHT—Is that the same with X-rated videos, that you can hold a nonclassified X-rated video but so long as you do not show it that is not against the law if it is not classified? 

Mr Clark—If it is not classified. 

Senator SCHACHT—So I can import a non-classified video and so long as I do not show it to myself or anyone else it is not illegal. 

Mr Clark—So long as you do not show it to anyone else. Once again, it is up to whether the matter is seized at the border. 

Senator SCHACHT—But in Australia now you will send a note to the distributor that he cannot even have a private showing of Baise-Moi for him and his executives. 

Mr Clark—I will not be sending a note. The enforcement is a state matter.

Senator SCHACHT—I just want to get this straight. I know it is a state matter. The police can go around to the distributor of Baise-Moi—I forget the name of the company; you might remind me of it— 

Mr Clark—Potential Films. 

Senator SCHACHT—Potential Films—they have an office in Sydney or Melbourne. 

Mr Clark—Melbourne. 

Senator SCHACHT—I presume they have asked for all of the copies of the movie to be returned to them because it is their property—right? 

Mr Clark—I assume so. 

Senator SCHACHT—If they had a private showing at their private cinema to see, for example, what they could do to the movie to remove the offending parts—such as happened in Great Britain—they are then in contravention of the state law and can be charged. Is that correct? 

Mr Clark—That is correct. 

Senator SCHACHT—I think you might see the point that this system is ludicrous—that they can hold the movie but if the chief executive had a private showing for himself alone he now breaks the law. 

Mr Clark—Sorry, Senator—not alone. But if he intends to sell or exhibit the film—and exhibit in that private circumstance apart from himself alone I would want to take more advice on— 

Senator SCHACHT—I think you should! 

Mr Clark—it would then be a breach. 

Senator SCHACHT—From what you know of state law, would the police have the power in Victoria to go around to his office and confiscate the movie? 

Mr Clark—I would really prefer not to get into state law. But my understanding is no, that it would not be the case. It really is state legislation. 

Senator SCHACHT—Let us just get back to this. If someone in Australia made a movie that they clearly knew would not get classification under the rules because of the content—it had bestiality or paedophilia in it; clearly illegal—apart from the fact that making it was illegal, if they held it in their possession and showed it to no-one else but themselves, are you also saying that that is not a breach of the act? 

Mr Clark—Not of the classification legislation, but it could well be a breach of other legislation. 

Senator SCHACHT—Other legislation, but it is not a breach of the classification act. This just continues to show the lunacy and the ludicrous nature of some of this once you get into censorship—and Baise-Moi has exposed it. I want to get back to Customs. As a former minister for Customs, I was always bemused by the fact that they had certain powers. Once it is inside the country, can they use any of their warrants or standing powers of seizure to go and seize something they believe is contraband and has been smuggled in? 

Mr Clark—I really cannot answer that question. 

Senator SCHACHT—Surely, you must—

CHAIR—Senator Schacht, I think Mr Clark is helping to the extent of his capacity in his position as the head of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Your questions, both in relation to state law and the application of customs law, go extensively outside Mr Clark’s areas of responsibility. In relation to the customs questions, you of course will be able to ask those of Customs in this very hearing. In relation to the other issues, if there are matters you wish to place on notice, I am sure the department will follow those up for you. 

Senator SCHACHT—I will ask Customs but, in the meantime, take on notice and come back to us on what you do to inform Customs of your arrangements when you make a decision that a film does not have a classification and that if it is coming through the border it should be seized. 

Mr Clark—The advice is given via the web site. As far as I am aware, we had inquiries from Customs within days of that decision in relation to this film. 

Senator SCHACHT—What was their query? 

Mr Clark—They had encountered copies of the film being imported into the country and confirmed advice that in fact that film had been refused classification.

Senator SCHACHT—They sought your advice and then, when they got your advice, they seized those copies of the film? 

Mr Clark—I cannot answer that, Senator. I am aware that they sought advice as to the final classification of the film. 

Senator SCHACHT—Were they tapes or commercial quality film that were coming in? 

Mr Clark—They were DVDs. 

Senator SCHACHT—And you do not know whether they seized them or not? 

Mr Clark—No. Once a classification decision has been made and they have that decision, on the basis of the classification they will make a decision to seize material, because it would be illegal to import it. So it is an automatic process in terms of the arrangements we have with Customs. 

Senator SCHACHT—When they seize it, using your decision, do they return the seized material to you or do they keep it for themselves and destroy it? Do you know? 

Mr Clark—It does not come to us. That is their process and their decision. 

Senator SCHACHT—Do you know what happens in Customs? 

Mr Clark—No. 

Senator SCHACHT—Mr Clark, it was said in the media that between your classification—giving an R18+—and when the Classification Review Board banned it, something like 50,000 Australians, according to the distributors, went and saw the movie. Do you have any reason to dispute that figure? 

Mr Clark—No. 

Senator SCHACHT—It might be 40,000 or 52,000, but it is not a figure that you would dispute? 

Mr Clark—I have no knowledge other than what I have read in the media.

Senator SCHACHT—Presumably, that is the correct figure. Of the 50,000, during that period of three or four weeks that it was shown, how many complaints did you receive from people who saw the movie and then said they wanted it banned? 

Mr Clark—I know there were, in the total period of time before and since, a couple of complaints from people who actually went to the film. There were one or two. 

Senator SCHACHT—One or two out of 50,000 people complained about the movie after they saw it? 

Mr Clark—To the best of my knowledge, of those who had seen the film, I think there were one or two.

Senator SCHACHT—Do you keep records? 

Mr Clark—We do. 

Senator SCHACHT—So you will be able to take it on notice and specifically tell us that two people who saw the movie complained about it. So, from 50,000, that means 49,998 did not complain. 

Mr Clark—Correct. Senator SCHACHT—Does that by definition mean that the 49,998 are deviant, sexually promiscuous and violently oriented, because they did not complain? 

CHAIR—Senator Schacht, I am not sure that that is a question that Mr Clark is in any position to answer. If it is an assessment that you wish to make, then that is a matter for you. 

Senator SCHACHT—Mr Clark said earlier—because he has to say this; it is in the legislation—that the board tries to represent community standards. I find it interesting that two people who saw the movie complained after they saw it and 49,998 who saw it did not complain. I can make an extrapolation that maybe the Australian community believes that it is not unreasonable for the movie to be exhibited under an R18+ classification. 

CHAIR—You can make that extrapolation, 

Senator Schacht. The point I was making was in relation to the questions you were asking of Mr Clark. 

Senator SCHACHT—Mr Clark, you said before that the members and part-time members of the review board are selected to reflect community standards, and in making your judgments you reflect community standards.

Mr Clark—They are selected to broadly represent the Australian community and as such the guidelines and the legislation talk about community standards. But they broadly represent the Australian community. 

Senator SCHACHT—Do you realise that more people on the review board—four of them—said it should be banned than of the 50,000 who actually saw it? That is a fact, isn’t it? 

Senator Ellison—You are not taking into account the rest of the population who did not see it and who might have wanted to see it banned. There was community concern about this film. Some of the reviews of it were not exactly complimentary, were they? 

Senator SCHACHT—That is the very point, Minister. A man in Adelaide—one of your Liberal members—was demonstrating outside the theatre in Adelaide, wanting the film to be banned. When they interviewed people who had been in to see it, most of them said they did not like the movie but not one of them said it should be banned. They said that adults should make up their own minds. I thought that was a pretty commonsense attitude. The people who wanted it banned had not seen it. It is a ludicrous situation. 

Senator Ellison—Things are banned without the whole population having to see them. You know that; it has been the system for some time. The community has not called for a committee of 18 million people to see a film before they make a decision as to whether it should be banned or not. You entrust that to responsible individuals. 

Senator SCHACHT—It is true that on most occasions you do not have any empirical evidence from the community about films that have been banned before they have even been distributed. Yes, people have to make a judgment. I understand that. There is material in Australia which under law has always been banned, and I do not think there is much argument that the community is pretty well relaxed about that. Those rules in the past have been pretty good. But we have now had the example of a sample of 50,000 Australians of which two took the trouble to complain to Mr Clark’s office about the film. Mr Clark, I will put it around the other way. It might make it easier for you or for the others who want to ban it. Did any of the 49,998 people who saw the movie send you messages to say that it should not be banned? 

Mr Clark—This answer is not specific to that, but there has been a large body of correspondence to the office in relation to both decisions, both for and against the decision by the board and by the Classification Review Board. 

Senator SCHACHT—During the month or three weeks the movie was shown before it was banned, just out of observation did you notice whether there was any increase in Australia in sex crimes, in murder or in mayhem? 

Senator Ellison—I do not think that that is Mr Clark’s area of responsibility. There are others who— 

Senator SCHACHT—He represents community standards. 

Senator Ellison—You are not asking about community standards there; you are asking about trends in crime. We might have to get Dr Greycar from the Australian Institute of Criminology to do a paper on it or something, but that takes forensic analysis, and you are asking this witness to make a statement to this committee about trends in crime and sexual behaviour. 

Senator SCHACHT—In some cases I think the parliament has badly drafted the legislation, and that has put Mr Clark and his office in a difficult position about community standards. I acknowledge that. But they are there to try to judge what relevant community standards are. In the broader picture, maybe that is why initially they gave a vote of 6-5 in favour of the movie. They thought that Australians could watch it and not go out and be, shall we say, aroused sexually or encouraged to commit violence. That is what I am interested in. If they are going to look at this broad community standard, what other evidence is there around that the 50,000 people who saw it were corrupted by it? 

Senator Ellison—You have to remember, Senator Schacht, that those 50,000 people wanted to see the film and they went to see it. You are relying upon them as a sample base. You know very well from your own experience campaigning that a true sample is one that is picked at random across the community. You are relying on a base of 50,000 people who went to see the film because they wanted to see it. A lot of people did not go and see the film because they did not want to see it. 

Senator SCHACHT—Good; that is choice in a democracy.

Senator Ellison—There is also the question of standards, and we have had those and you have recognised that yourself. There are laws to recognise community standards and this is a situation where the process recognised that and banned the film. 

Senator SCHACHT—This is a process in which, over the last several years, during your government in particular, the law has been amended to make it more likely that this outcome would occur—that is, so that those people who have an ideological position in favour of censorship to achieve certain moral outcomes have more success. I accept that; they have had a victory. But I do not think the majority of Australians overwhelmingly accept that someone else should dictate in this sort of area what they have a right to see, read and do at this level. The parliament made the decision. I disagreed with it and I have to admit I was not successful in my own party. When these amendments were put before the parliament I thought we should oppose them. I was not successful, but that is another argument inside the Labor Party. The parliament has now made retrograde decisions that have put Mr Clark and his board in a stupid position not of his own making. I acknowledge that. Mr Clark, I have a question about film festivals. In South Australia the new Premier has just announced funding for a major new international film festival to be held in Adelaide every two years in the alternate years to the very successful Adelaide Festival of Arts. What is the arrangement if that film festival wants to have an exhibition as part of the range of movies and show Baise-Moi? It has now been banned in Australia at a film festival level. 

Mr Clark—That is correct, but under the South Australian residual powers the granting of an exemption for the purposes of a festival is under state legislation. In most other states and territories that exemption for festivals is given by the OFLC. In the South Australian case it is not, so it would be a South Australian decision in relation to that. 

Senator SCHACHT—Thank goodness for that. The new Premier, Mike Rann, says he is a dedicated believer in people like Don Dunstan, who believed that adults should have the mature ability to make their own judgments. If he wanted to, Baise-Moi could be given an exemption to be shown at the Adelaide film festival next year. 

Mr Clark—I am uncertain as to the exemption provisions under the state legislation. 

Senator SCHACHT—It would be ironic if that happened because I think the state of South Australia put that exemption in to do the exact opposite. Is that correct?

Mr Clark—I do not know the intent, but it can work in both directions. 

Senator SCHACHT—Yes. In 1981 the then Liberal Attorney-General of South Australia did not like a movie called Bad Arse or something which was to be shown at the then Adelaide film festival. It had something to do with drugs. He banned it of his own volition. It wrecked the Adelaide film festival and it collapsed because no director of a movie was going to put their movies through a state attorney-general’s view of what was artistic or not. So he amended it. Ironically, Mike Rann now has the ability under state legislation to get round the Ms Drapers of the world who want to ban everything in sight. Is that correct? 

Senator HARRADINE—Madam Chair, could I please take a point of order.

Mr Clark—Senator Schacht, I cannot comment on that.

Senator HARRADINE—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. 

CHAIR—Senator Harradine, I was just about to come to you. You wish to raise a point of order.

Senator HARRADINE—I thought you may have corrected Senator Schacht. He reflected on a member of the House of Representatives. 

CHAIR—He made a comment about Ms Draper, the member for Makino, in his statements to Mr Clark. I was about to say that it would be helpful, Senator Schacht, given the discussion we had previously, if you would refrain from doing that. I take the point that Senator Harradine has raised. The members to whom you have made reference are not in a position to respond to those references in these hearings, and on that basis it would be helpful if you avoided making those references. 

Senator SCHACHT—I referred to the member’s ideological position; I did not refer to her personally. I said that Ms Draper— 

CHAIR—I heard what you said, Senator Schacht; there is no need to repeat it. 

Senator SCHACHT—Ms Draper is the South Australian federal member for Makin— 

CHAIR—Could you continue with your questions to Mr Clark? 

Senator SCHACHT—The question is, I would think she would be quite delighted to say that she had—

CHAIR—Senator Schacht, I do not think there is any need to canvass that any further. 

Senator SCHACHT—Okay. Has any other state got an exemption for film festivals the way South Australia has? 

Mr Clark—No, they have not. 

Senator SCHACHT—It is only the South Australian experience which I— Mr Clark—I am certain because I know there was an amendment in Tasmania, which I think brought it into line with most other states and territories. 

Senator SCHACHT—There was an amendment in Tasmania to remove the exemption? 

Mr Clark—No. There was an amendment to their act and part of that was that we would do their exemptions for festivals in future. 

Senator SCHACHT—I would like to ask about the members of the board—not the review board but the board that does the classification. You have in your report that members of the board either individually or as small panels review a lot of material every week, every month et cetera. Mr Clark—Yes, that is correct.

Senator SCHACHT—They see some, to say the least, distasteful material and a lot of awful material. Is that correct? Mr Clark—There is a lot of material they encounter which is extremely confronting. 

Senator SCHACHT—Why are those people better able to withstand watching these very confronting things every day and yet not be psychologically affected, or not become affected in a way that creates antisocial activity, but the rest of the Australian population cannot make the same judgment? 

Mr Clark—Senator— 

Senator SCHACHT—What is so special about you, Mr Clark, and the others that you can see all of this material, day in and day out, and yet you do not go out and commit crimes or conduct antisocial activity?

Mr Clark—I do not think it is a question of anything special. The members of the board have a significant amount of training to undertake their activities. They are affected by the material in the sense that they can occasionally require support and counselling in relation to it. They consider they are serving the Australian community—they take their responsibilities very seriously—and for a period of time in their lives they consider that to be something very special to do.

Senator SCHACHT—But they are ordinary Australians?

Mr Clark—They are very much ordinary Australians.

Senator SCHACHT—You say that occasionally or regularly they have to get counselling? 

Mr Clark—That service is available to them. We do not measure that, but it is available if they wish. 

Senator SCHACHT—Do you know, without naming anybody—that would be an invasion of privacy—how many times individual members have sought regular counselling? 

Mr Clark—No, it is not something that we keep records on. That service is also available to other members of staff. 

Senator Ellison—I think, Madam Chair, we are straying onto dangerous ground here. 

Senator SCHACHT—I understand that, Minister.

CHAIR—We are straying into an area of great sensitivity; that is certainly true. 

Senator SCHACHT—I just wanted to ask: the counselling is not mandatory but it is available and it is up to the individual to seek it? 

Mr Clark—There are two processes: one is debriefing where they talk about the experience, and the other is that there is another service available if they wish. It is not just for board members but for other members of staff who encounter material. We do not distinguish between the two groups. 

Senator SCHACHT—Is the counselling done by other people within the office or— 

Mr Clark—No, we have a service provider who is available to— 

Senator SCHACHT—And they are on a retainer to provide that? 

Mr Clark—Correct. 

Senator SCHACHT—I just want to say, Mr Clark, as one of those who have tried to argue in this place for a long, long time a different view from that which others have, I actually trust the Australian people’s judgment; they themselves should be able to overwhelmingly make a decision. I think you and your staff at the Office of Film and Literature Classification have often been put in an invidious position by a very small minority who are trying to restrict what adults can make their own judgment about. I have always said that I do not blame the office and the staff that you have. I think the parliament has made mistakes in legislation. A very small minority, who do not reflect the Australian public, have put you in an invidious position. I wish you luck in the future and I hope that, at some stage in the future, the Australian parliament amends the legislation to make it easier for you to do your job on behalf of the great majority of Australians. 

CHAIR—We will take that as a statement, Senator Schacht.

Senator HARRADINE—I have a couple of questions on the matter of transparency. Is it not a fact that the provisions of the legislation limit standing to a certain group of people: those people aggrieved? 

Mr Clark—This is to the review board? 

Senator HARRADINE—Yes. 

Mr Clark—Yes, Senator. 

Senator HARRADINE—In this particular case, community groups that were very strongly concerned and that wished to openly and transparently take the matter to the review board were unable to do so because of the fact that the persons aggrieved by the decision of the OFLC were the producers or the maker of the film? Mr Clark—A normal application for a review would come from the applicant, which is usually the producer or, most often, the distributor of a film. There is a 30-day period, after initial classification, within which an application for review can be made. That application can also be made by state and territory ministers or the Commonwealth Attorney-General. There is a provision, under the recent amendments, for perso