The November meeting of the Censorship
ministers produced the following two communiqués.
In the first they explain the reason behind the change of name of
the MA15+ rating, to A15+ accompanied.
Commonwealth, State and Territory
Censorship Ministers have agreed to change classification laws to better
inform the community about strong material in films and computer games.
The MA15+ classification will now be
called A15+ Accompanied.
Ministers agreed that A15+ Accompanied, in
conjunction with the message that children under 15 must be accompanied
by a parent or an adult guardian, would more effectively communicate the
appropriate audience for the material.
The name change is to emphasise the
meaning of this category. The change will not affect the way the
Classification Board makes decisions.
Ministers are determined to make the
classification scheme work to protect minors from material that may be
harmful or disturbing. The change will help parents make informed
choices for themselves or those in their care.
The change to A 15+ Accompanied will also
assist cinemas, video outlets and retailers to enforce the restriction
on supply of A 15+ material to children under 15
years of age who are not in the company of their parents.
The decision was based on research by the
Office of Film and Literature Classification, which found that
Australian consumers did not understand the difference between the MA15+
and M15+ classifications.
Further research undertaken by the OFLC in
May 2003, including a community sample, indicated near unanimous support
for A15+ to replace MA15+.
Ministers also agreed to the introduction
of consistent classification categories for films and computer games.
Legislation to give effect to the change
will be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament later this year.
The OFLC will also engage in strategies,
in consultation with industry, to ensure the community understands the
meaning of the classification categories for films and computer games.
******
In the second they announce another round of community assessment
panels.
Commonwealth, State and Territory
Censorship Ministers today agreed to a further round of community
assessment panels to ensure the Classification Board is making decisions
regarding films and computer games in accordance with community
standards.
The community assessment panels, made up
of independently selected members of the community, will provide their
opinion on the classification and consumer advice of some films and
computer games classified by the Classification Board.
The panels will meet after the Board has
made a decision, but before the film or computer game is publicly
released. The panels will apply the same criteria the Board uses when
making classification decisions.
In order to provide input from a broad
cross-section of the Australian population, this round of panels will be
conducted in Alice Springs, Melbourne and Canberra.
The panels will be convened by independent
research consultants in the first half of 2004.
Previous community assessment panels,
undertaken in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Wagga Wagga and Bendigo
from 1997 to 2000, found overall high levels of agreement between the
panels and the Board.
******
On November 26th the OFLC passed IRREVERSIBLE
uncut with an R18+ (Strong Sexual Violence, Graphic Violence, Sexual
Activity). The newly formed Accent Film Entertainment plan to screen the
film in February/March 2004. The following article claims
that it:
".....caused a lot of consternation at
the censorship authority, which kept the film for an unprecedented three
weeks."
Dean O'Flaherty from Accent Film Distributors is
also quoted as saying that the OFLC:
".....did tell us it was one of the
most controversial films to go through the OFLC since Pasolini's Salo"
Shocking
film's R-rating. Sydney Herald-Sun 09.12.03 (ARCHIVED)
IRREVERSIBLE toured around the country earlier in the year as part of
the French Film Festival. Apart from some minor problems in South
Australia, it screened with no problems.
******
A mentioned in the last update the SILVERBALL
PRO AMUSEMENT MACHINE was Refused Classification in October. The
applicant appealed the decision and won. This is the OFLC press release
on the subject.
21 November 2003
NEWS RELEASE
Classification Review Board determines
Silverball Product Version 8 M15+
A three-member panel of the Classification
Review Board met today to finalise its determination.
The Review Board unanimously determined that the computer game, Silverball
Product Version 8 is classified
M15+ with the consumer advice "Contains some
nudity".
Material classified M15+ is not
recommended for persons under 15 years of age. It is an
advisory category.
The Review Board convened in response to
an application from the applicant, which sought
leave to be represented by Gary Robb & Associates.
In reviewing the classification of Silverball
Product Version 8, the Review Board worked
within the framework, and applied the provisions of the
The Review Board is an independent merits
review tribunal. It meets in camera to hear
applications for review of decisions of the Classification Board.
Despite SILVERBALL being cleared by the Review Board, the OFLC then
went and banned another machine. The Canadian iTOUCH Amusement machine
was Refused Classification in November. The Australian distributors are
JVL Entertainment.
The descriptions of the Erotic
games found on the company website
look very similar to those on the SILVERBALL machine.
******
On a related note, Anthony Larme from the Games
Censorship Collection site has been kind enough to send in this
correspondence he had with Des Clarke of the OFLC.
On 19 May, I sent an email message to the
OFLC to ask them a few important
questions re: their new combined Film and Games Guidelines.
This was the most important part of my
email:
*****
I am intrigued by the possibilities of your revised computer games
guidelines.
They now allow for the presence of nudity
and simulated sex in non-medical
education situations (providing such scenes
are not "rewards").
Previously, such material was rated RC and
various games were banned to everyone
as a result.
So, does that mean games banned for such
reasons are now able to be sold/imported?
If not, then why are these games still
banned when newer games with identical
content would be permitted? Why such a contradiction for games
containing exactly the same material?
Also,
What are some factors that would lead the
OFLC to believe a particular nudity/sex
scene in a game was a "reward"?
And what about interactive DVDs? Some of
these contain interactive storylines.
Are these now "games" or "movies" to you? eg :
"Tender Loving Care" (in
1999 banned as a cd-rom game but allowed as MA as an interactive
DVD despite the fact it contained exactly the same interactive
scenes).
*****
I received this response from Des Clark,
the Director, on the 25th of this
month:
*****
15803
03/9005
Mr Anthony Larme
Dear Mr Larme
I refer to your email of 19 May 2003
regarding the classification of computer
games under the combined Guidelines for the Classification of Films
and Computer Games (the Combined Guidelines). I apologise on the delay
in my reply.
The national classification scheme is a
cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth,
States and Territories. The Classification Board classifies
films (including videos and DVDs), computer games and certain
publications. When making decisions, the Board applies criteria
in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games)
Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the classification
guidelines. Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with
censorship responsibilities agree to the Code and the guidelines.
The Combined Guidelines, which came into
operation on 30 March 2003, are the
product of a review of the classification guidelines for films and
computer games to ensure that they continue to reflect community standards.
In the course of the review process, the Office of Film and Literature
Classification received 372 submissions from the public, the
film and computer games industries, and community and professional
organisations. Censorship Ministers noted the
sentiment expressed in many of the
submissions that both the previous guidelines, and the draft
combined guidelines which were distributed with the review discussion
paper, lacked simplicity, transparency and clarity.
The Combined Guidelines have consequently
been simplified and streamlined so
that they can be more workable and transparent. A language
consultant, Professor Peter Butt of the Faculty of Law, University
of Sydney, has confirmed confirmed that the Combined Guidelines
were simpler, clearer and easier to use. I have included a link
to the Combined Guidelines for your information.
I note your understanding that the
Combined Guidelines now allow for the
presence of nudity and simulated sex in non-medical situations. This
is not correct. I would like to emphasise that the standards from
the previous guidelines have not changed. The
Combined Guidelines provide a clearer
hierarchy for decision-making by the Classification Board.
Under the Combined Guidelines, the MA
classification provides that sexual
activity may be implied and that nudity should be justified by context.
The impact of depictions of both sexual activity and nudity within
the MA classification should be no higher than strong. Computer games
including material which exceeds the MA category will continue to
be refused classification (RC).
In the previous guidelines, nudity
including genital detail was permissible
within the MA classification but only if there was a ‘bona fide'
educational, medical or community health purpose. While this qualification
is no longer specifically listed in the Combined Guidelines,
the Board must still consider whether depictions of nudity are
justified by context. Interactivity may restrict the circumstances
in which nudity and sexual activity is
justified by context, for example, if
depictions of nudity and sexual activity are related to incentives
or rewards.
In your email, you ask about the status of
games classified under the previous
guidelines. Existing classification decisions stand unless the
Board determines a need for reclassification. Reclassification can
be undertaken at the initiative of the Board
or by the request of the Attorney-General
two years after the original classification decision was
made.
In your email, you also ask what would
lead to a determination that depictions
of sexual activity or nudity constitute a reward. This is a matter
for the Board to determine on a case-by-case basis. This issue has
not yet arisen under the Combined Guidelines.
You also question the difference between
an interactive DVD and a computer game
and how they are classified. The Classification Act provides
a definition of "interactive film" and "interactive
game". An interactive game is
"a game in which the way the game proceeds and the result
achieved at various stages of the game is determined in response
to the decisions, inputs and direct involvement of the player".
An interactive film "enables a person using it to choose from
2 or more visual images, the image that will
be viewed". Both interactive
films and interactive games are classified in accordance with
the Combined Guidelines.
I note you refer to the game Tender Loving
Care. On 30 July 1998 the Board
considered a computer game sale/hire application for the interactive
thriller. In applying the previous Guidelines for the Classification
of Computer Games, the Board was of the opinion that the
game warranted an RC classification due to the depictions of sexual
activity. The previous computer game guidelines provided that material
including gratuitous nudity and sexual activity must be refused
classification.
On 3 April 2000, the Board considered a
film sale/hire application for a DVD
version of Tender Loving Care. Under the previous Guidelines for the
Classification of Films and Videotapes, the Board was of the opinion
that the game warranted an MA classification due to adult themes
of a high intensity. The Guidelines provided that within the MA classification,
sexual activity may be implied, nudity should not be exploitative
and the treatment of themes with a high degree of intensity
should be discreet. The content of the DVD falls within the MA
classification for films and videotapes.
I hope this information assists you.
Yours sincerely
Des Clark
Director
15 July 2003
*****
My comments:
**So, presumably, interactive movies on DVD such as Tender Loving Care
or Point of View are "interactive films" while inevitably
controversial games such as "Postal 2" are still
"games"?
** Perhaps the OFLC could reclassify RC
games like cd-rom "Tender Loving
Care" and "Phantasmagoria" and the censored version of
its sequel on its own initiative?
Surely, they would pass under the present
guidelines? Apparently, the original distributor need not reapply.
But, that's still a "limbo" area in that these games are
still, strictly speaking, illegal to
sell/import even if they would likely
be allowed these days.
** These new guidelines are indeed largely
untested when it comes to games and
similar products. Let's see how they deal with "rewards"
and the issue of the same game being released
on different formats..... At least
they will be forced to consider contextual issues
for games - something not permitted under the older guidelines!
** I thank Des Clark for his response!
You can contact Anthony through his website if you
have comments on any of the issues raised here.
It's worth noting that it is OFLC policy to reply to any correspondence
within 30 days. So any questions, comments etc should receive some sort
of a reply.
******
Don Chipp (the father of R18+) appeared at the Melbourne SEXPO to
speak out against increasing censorship.
Chipp
off an old block
. The Age 26.11.03
An old warrior against censorship takes up
the cudgels, again, this time as part of Sexpo, writes William Birnbauer.
Sex is on Don Chipp's mind, together with
the double standards he's seen. He's recalling the 1970s when sex and
what Australians could watch and read was a battlefield, and he was
taking on wowsers to the left and the right.
As the minister responsible for
censorship, he managed to introduce the "R" rating for film
classifications, allowed the musical Hair to be staged, let Lady
Chatterley's Lover into the country, and approved the importation of
sex aids.
***
(ARCHIVED) Moral health safe with Sexpo. Australian Financial Review 27.11.03
***
Famous
and curious pay homage at shrine to sexual freedom. The Age 28.11.03
When David Ross started Sexpo in Melbourne
in 1996, it was women he was trying to lure.
Men came in their droves. Women have taken
a little longer to catch on. This year, however, Mr Ross estimates that
40 per cent of the anticipated 70,000 visitors will be women.
It was "Ladies Day" yesterday on
the opening day of Melbourne's eighth Sexpo, which runs until Sunday at
the Exhibition Centre.
***
The full text of the speech that Don made on November 27th is available
at the Eros site. It is divided into two parts.
Hear
No Evil Pt.1
Hear
No Evil Pt.2
******
Volume.4 No.2 of the Eros Journal was released to coincide with the
Melbourne Sexpo. Some of the articles are available on-line, but support
these guys and subscribe.
The following article appears in the latest issue and reports on F***
Nile's push to outlaw Category One publications in NSW.
Nile's
New Magazine Legislation. Eros Journal Vol.4 No.2
Nile is also preparing to fight the legalisation
of X18+ in NSW.
Who
Sets NSW’s Moral Agenda? Eros Journal Vol.4 No.2
******
BODY ILLUSION, the Adult video which was Refused Classification in
November has now been passed with an X18+. To achieve this rating
Calvista had to edit it from 88 to 86mins.
******
NSW State Labor MP Paul Gibson is not very happy about the G rating
given to the Xbox game Project
Gotham Racing 2
"This game sends the wrong message to
young people. It is actually glorifying speed and power," Mr Gibson
said. "It is clearly an inappropriate depiction of speed behaviour.
If I had my way I would ban it."
MP
demands ban on video hoons
. Sydney Sun-Herald 16.11.03
Xbox must be delighted with Mr Gibson's little outburst.
******
MANHUNT has
become the first game ever to be banned in New
Zealand.
The following statement was issued by the New Zealand Office of Film
and Literature Classification. None of the following applies to
Australia. It was rated MA15+ (Medium Level Animated Violence) back in
October.
How the banning of
Manhunt affects you.
A classification of
"objectionable" means that the game is banned in New Zealand
because the Office determined that its availability was "likely to
be injurious to the public good."
Every classification is
tailored to remedy the injury that could be caused if a publication were
to be made available to the public. The injury that the Office found
Manhunt likely to cause could not be remedied by anything short of a
ban. The legal consequences that flow from a ban reflect the gravity of
the harm likely to be caused by the game's availability.
In this case, the Office
decided that
the freedom of expression is outweighed by
likelihood of injury to the public good that could result from this
game's availability. The length of time it takes to complete the game,
and the necessity to repeat the killings in ever more gory fashion on
each level if one does not complete that level at first attempt,
increases exposure to material that initially disturbs, but which must
be accommodated, to complete the game. A player's power both to initiate
violence and to control the level of violence is part of the process by
which this accommodation is made. To succeed in this game, a player,
regardless of age or maturity, must learn over an extended period of
time to acquiesce in, tolerate, or even enjoy, the violence he or she
inflicts.
One of the consequences
of the ban is that it is now illegal to possess Manhunt in New Zealand.
Anyone who possesses this game is liable to a fine of $2,000 (s131).
Anyone who possesses Manhunt and exhibits or displays it to someone
under the age of 18 is liable to imprisonment for one year or a fine of
$20,000 (s127).
Anyone who supplies,
distributes, exhibits, displays, supplies, possesses for the purpose of
supply or advertises Manhunt, knowing that it is objectionable, could be
imprisoned for up to a year or fined $20,000. Incorporated distributors
and retailers could face a fine of $50,000 (s124).
A game classified as
"objectionable" cannot be legally imported either.
Objectionable publications, including Manhunt, are "prohibited
imports" under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The Customs Service
has the power to seize all prohibited imports, regardless of how they
arrive at the border. A person who buys Manhunt on an overseas trip and
tries to bring it into New Zealand, and anyone who has ordered it from a
website, risks not only having the game seized, but also 6 months in
jail or a fine of $10,000 (s209 of the Customs and Excise Act).
Bans are not lightly
entertained. When they are imposed, it is because the Office can see no
other way of mitigating the risk of injury to the public good. In this
case, the need to protect the greater public good from injury required
the sacrifice of the right of individuals to entertain themselves with
Manhunt's gameplay of sadistic and gory killings.
New Zealand had previously been more liberal than
Australia with games ratings. The full versions of GTA 3 and GTA: VICE
CITY were released there, but modified here.
******
NINJA SCROLL
has finally been given an uncut R4 DVD release. This Special
Edition replaces the BBFC censored Madman/AV Channel disc.
******
The 80's Australian Merlin video release of Michael Reeve's WITCHFINDER
GENERAL was also a censored BBFC print. Umbrella Entertainment have
now issued the full version on R4 DVD. This review
explains some of the censorship problems the film has
had over the years.
******
Finally, a couple of non-OFLC censorship issues.
A new addition to the database is the Taiwanese film, DOUBLE
VISION.
This has been released in Australia in the cut 110min version, as
opposed to the full 113mins.
On Thursday 18th December, the World Movies Pay-TV channel premiered SLEEPLESS, Dario Argento's latest. As is had never been rated by the
OFLC, the channel gave the uncut version an R18+ rating.
His previous film, THE
Phantom
of the Opera, Premiered
on the Foxtel's Showtime back in January. The channel's censors had
imposed just over 20 seconds of cuts. These were most obvious where the Phantom
bites the girls tongue off, and the decapitation of the
rat catcher.
As it has never been rated by the OFLC, Showtime decided to award the film an MA15+.
Since this is the highest rating that they can screen, I would assume
they judged it as R18+ without the cuts.
In November 1999 an uncut version screened twice at the Sydney
Italian Film Festival. It later received an unofficial video release
(with fake MA15+) from an Australian "no-name" label.
******
The latest Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship)
report is out now. Unfortunately the proposed R18+ for games got voted down by
SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson.
ANNUAL REPORT STANDING COMMITTEE OF
ATTORNEYS-GENERAL CENSORSHIP 2002 – 2003
Introduction
This report contains significant decisions
made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) Censorship
during the 2002-2003 reporting period. It is presented in accordance
with the reporting requirements under the Procedures for SCAG which
reflect the Broad Protocols for the Operation of Ministerial Councils.
Under the Broad Protocols, all meetings of SCAG are confidential unless
otherwise agreed by Ministers. Commonwealth, State and Territory
Ministers with censorship responsibilities have approved this report for
public release.
National Classification Scheme
The national classification scheme is a
cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth, States and
Territories. The scheme assists Australians to make informed choices by
classifying some entertainment products. The scheme was established by
the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.
This Act provides that the Classification Board classifies films
(including videos and DVDs), computer games and certain publications.
The States and Territories enforce classification decisions under their
respective classification enforcement legislation.
SCAG-Censorship
The censorship component of SCAG oversees
the national classification scheme.
Under paragraph 7 of the
Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship (1995), subject to the
agreement:
(a) any decision to be made by the
Ministers in relation to the scheme; or
(b) the consideration by the Ministers of
other matters related to the administration of the scheme
is to be effected through SCAG in
accordance with its procedures.
The Classification (Publications, Films
and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth confers on
participating Ministers a collective responsibility to agree to
amendments to the national classification code (section 6) and determine
guidelines (or amendments to such guidelines) to assist in the
application of the criteria in the National Classification Code (section
12). Ministers deal with these matters at SCAG meetings.
Under section 90 of the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, Ministers may enter
into an agreement regarding payments in respect of the administration by
the State or Territory of the national classification scheme. This is
met through the Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship.
The Act requires consultation with
participating Ministers about principles for serial publications
(section 13(4)); principles for fee waiver (section 91(1A)); and
appointments to the Classification Board (section 48(3)) and
Classification Review Board (section 74(3)). This consultation generally
occurs outside SCAG meetings.
The censorship component of SCAG does not
exercise any statutory decision making functions under the Trans-Tasman
Mutual Recognition Arrangement as the products classified under the
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 are
exempt from the arrangement under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition
Act 1997.
Members 2002 – 2003
SCAG-Censorship meetings involve
Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with censorship
responsibilities.
At the end of 2002 – 2003, the Ministers
responsible for censorship were all Attorneys-General, with the
exception of the Queensland member (Minister for Tourism, Racing and
Fair Trading) and the Western Australian member from 27 June 2003
(Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Justice).
The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC
(Commonwealth)
The Hon Jon Stanhope (ACT)
The Hon Bob Debus (NSW)
The Hon Dr Peter Toyne (NT)
The Hon Merri Rose (QLD)
The Hon Michael Atkinson (SA)
The Hon Judy Jackson (Tas) from 9 August
2002
The Hon Dr Peter Patmore (Tas) – until 8
August 2002
The Hon Rob Hulls (Vic)
The Hon Michelle Roberts (WA) – from 27
June 2003
The Hon Jim McGinty (WA) – until 26 June
2003
The Hon Margaret Wilson (NZ)
The Hon Paul Holloway (SA) was Minister
from 30 June 2003 to 29 August 2003.
The Hon Philip Ruddock MP was appointed
Australian Attorney-General on 7 October 2003.
Meetings SCAG-Censorship met three times
during the reporting period to discuss censorship matters. These meeting
took place on:
• 26 July 2002 in Cairns;
• 7-8 November 2002 in Fremantle;
and
• 10 April 2003 in Melbourne.
Censorship Officials met to develop issues
for the consideration of Ministers prior to each meeting. Officials also
met on 26 June 2003 to consider common enforcement issues and
opportunities to harmonise enforcement legislation.
Decisions
The significant decisions of Censorship
Ministers included:
• Classification Guidelines Review
process. At the July 2002 meeting, Ministers agreed that future
guidelines review processes would include targeted small group
consultations;
• Notification of jurisdictions of
decisions of the Classification Review Board to refuse classification of
films. At the July 2002 meeting, Ministers agreed that all jurisdictions
would nominate two officers to receive notifications;
• Determined Markings. At the July 2002
meeting, Ministers noted that the determinations for films and computer
games would be updated to ensure a consistent set of classification
symbols for films and computer games;
• Review of the ARIA Code of Practice.
At the November 2002 meeting, Ministers endorsed proposals presented by
the Australian Record Industry Association and the Australian Music
Retailers Association to establish a new three tiered labelling system,
including a level for audio material restricted to persons over 18 years
of age;
• Review of the Classification
Guidelines for Films and Computer Games. Ministers agreed to the
Combined Guidelines presented at the November 2002 meeting; and
• Legislative amendments to implement
the Combined Guidelines. At the April 2003 meeting, Ministers agreed in
principle to the amendments. Communiqués Four communiqués were
released by SCAG-Censorship during the reporting period.
The communiqués were:
• Ministers agree to further steps
towards streamlined classification guidelines (26 July 2002);
• Ministers reject R18+ classification
for computer games (8 November 2002);
• Combined Guidelines for Films and
Computer Games (12 November 2002); and • New labels for Audio
Recordings (12 November 2002). Copies of the communiqués are provided
as an appendix to this report.
COAG
Under the Broad Protocols for the
Operation of Ministerial Councils, Ministerial Councils should make
available a summary of Council outcomes to Head of Government though the
Chair of COAG after each Council meeting, if requested.
There were no requests received from COAG
during the reporting period.
Secretariat
The Office of Film and Literature
Classification provides secretariat and policy support for
SCAG-Censorship meetings. During the reporting period, Mr Paul Hunt,
Acting Deputy Director, Classification Board, performed secretariat
functions for SCAG-Censorship on a part-time basis. The current
secretariat contact for SCAG-Censorship is: Ms Patricia Flanagan Senior
Executive, Strategy and Communication Locked Bag 3 HAYMARKET NSW 1240
Telephone: (02) 9289 7100 Facsimile: (02) 9289 7101 Email: oflcswitch@oflc.gov.au