IRREVERSIBLE is in danger of being banned again! The South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has requested a second review.

You may remember that it was he who had problems before the film played as part of the 2003 French Film Festival. 

******

Make your feelings known to the South Australian Attorney General. His contact details are:

Michael Atkinson
Ministry Telephone: 8207 1723
Ministry Facsimile: 8207 1736 
Ministry Email: attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au 
Ministry Address: 11th Floor, 45 Pirie Street, Adelaide 5000 
Ministry Postal Address: GPO Box 464, Adelaide 5000 Electorate Telephone: 8346 2462 
Electorate Facsimile: 8346 5471
Electorate Address: 574 Port Road, Allenby Gardens 5009

******
On a related note, I've added a link to the South Australian Classification Council.

******

Des Clark was down in Canberra this week for his biannual grilling by Brian Harradine. Topics covered include IRREVERSIBLE, THE CAT IN THE HAT and Computer Game ratings. He also gets some answers about the current review of the guidelines. Harradine was not happy that the deadline for submissions  was May 31st. 

Quickly caving into his pressure the OFLC website was quietly changed to give a new deadline of June 21st. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Although it does give the conservatives an extra three weeks to get their act together, it also does the same for us. Those of you who have not managed to get your thoughts to the OFLC should do so now. You now know that IRREVERSIBLE is under threat once again. Sorry to keep going on about this, but you have got to get your opinions heard.

******

Here is the full text of Harradine vs. Clark in Senate Estimates. 

attorney-general's portfolio: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Date: 24 May, 2004
Department: attorney-general's portfolio
Database: Estimates Comm.
Committee name: LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Program: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Proof: Yes

Senator HARRADINE —When did you send the responses to my questions on notice of February of this year?

Mr Clark —I do not have the actual date, but my recollection is that they would have been sent at the due date or a day or two after that date. I could seek advice about that but I do not have that date here with me.

Senator HARRADINE —A number of my questions on notice dealt with the provision of an R category for the film Irreversible. What has been the response to that particular film being so classified?

Mr Clark —There has been some response from some organisations in relation to the R classification. Generally, in terms of the public, there has not been a huge reaction to the film. Are you asking about letters from the public to the office?

Senator HARRADINE —I am asking what has been the response with regard to petitions, letters and complaints.

Mr Clark —There have been some letters and complaints about the film. There have been some critical comments in the media in relation to the film, which say it is a very confronting but genuine film. There has been a mixed response to the film.

Senator HARRADINE —I understand that there is a review under way at the moment. There is an operational review of guidelines for the classification of films and computer games—is that a fact?

Mr Clark —There is an operational view which is just commencing. That is correct.

Senator HARRADINE —Who knew about that?

Mr Clark —It has been advertised in the papers nationally.

Senator HARRADINE —When?

Mr Clark —It was advertised on 1 May in nine papers around the country.

Senator HARRADINE —Were they local papers?

Mr Clark —No, they were the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times, the Melbourne Age, the Weekend Australian, the Hobart Mercury, the Adelaide Advertiser, the West Australian, the Northern Territory News and the Brisbane Courier-Mail.

Senator HARRADINE —When was that done?

Mr Clark —On 1 May.

Senator HARRADINE —When is the closing date for submissions?

Mr Clark —We have asked for submissions by 31 May.

Senator HARRADINE —A month?

Mr Clark —Yes.

Senator HARRADINE —How large were those advertisements, by the way?

Mr Clark —I have a copy. This is the actual size.

Senator HARRADINE —Did you contact any other organisations or individuals to notify them of the review?

Mr Clark —We have not directly contacted people about this advertisement but certainly all people who have written in relation to the guidelines were advised that an operational review would take place this year after 12 months of the operation and that it would be widely advertised in the press.

Senator HARRADINE —When was that letter written?

Mr Clark —That advice was given to correspondents over the past year, Senator.

Senator HARRADINE —You have only allowed one month for submissions. Why?

Mr Clark —One month in terms of keeping the momentum of the review under way seemed like a reasonable period of time. We have been approached by one organisation in relation to the time frame and we have said that we are happy to accommodate them provided it does not cause unreasonable delay to it, and they will be corresponding with us in relation to an extension of time. So we are not being inflexible about it; we are just setting a reasonable period.

Senator HARRADINE —Given that that operational review of the guidelines is under way, what processes have the OFLC had in place to measure or evaluate the effects of the new film guidelines and whether they change outcomes in classification when compared with the old guidelines?

Mr Clark —We have been collecting and are now in the process of bringing together classification decisions made before and after the introduction of the guidelines, which is 12 months prior to the commencement and since. So there is a lot of statistical information. We are also looking at the submissions made throughout the year. We are looking at submissions made now in relation to the guidelines and we will look at complaints. We are looking at the principal elements that have contributed to the classification of all films and computer games over that period to assess them, and that information, once it is collated, will be given to an independent expert who can assess the operation of the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —Who will you give it to?

Mr Clark —We have a select tender to employ someone who is expert in media and who will have some expertise in relation to looking at the work and the decisions of the board over that period to assess whether there has been any change in the operation of the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —There have been very serious claims that the OFLC changes in words do in fact change the administration of the guidelines.

Mr Clark —Certainly the words in the guidelines have changed. But we believe that the standards contained within the guidelines have not changed and that the operation of the guidelines has been quite smooth over that period. This review is in fact there to test that and to try to give us some measure in relation to that operation period.

Senator HARRADINE —You are aware, are you not, of the concerns of some people—quite a number of persons and organisations—about the new film guidelines in that they centre around the change of assessment approach to focus on the impact of the film?

Mr Clark —There has been no change in relation to the consideration of impact. It has always been there. A lot of work went into ensuring that the matters to be considered were clearly stated in a more orderly manner in the presentation of the new guidelines. So impact has always been a consideration within the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —But there have been quite clear criteria against which assessments were made. Whereas now the focus—I did not say it was not useful—of these guidelines is on the impact of the film.

Mr Clark —Those elements are contained within the impact test in the guidelines. One of the concerns we have had in the use of the new guidelines is that people have moved very rapidly to the actual pages of the classification types rather than reading the first five or six pages which outline the use of the guidelines and how that consideration of impact is to be made. I would particularly refer to pages 4, 5 and 6 of the guidelines document. In there lies the consideration of all of the factors that have been contained in the previous guidelines and their use.

Senator HARRADINE —You will admit, will you not, that the focus now is particularly on context, impact and the six classifiable elements, but context and impact receive a higher focus than under the previous guidelines?

Mr Clark —No, they do not. They have always been important; these guidelines merely clarify the fact that these considerations must take place. There has not been a change.

Senator HARRADINE —Look at the film Irreversible. That particular film includes a nine-minute anal rape scene but because the scene was classified as high impact rather than very high—a subjective assessment—it was given an R classification and not higher.

Mr Clark —It was given an R classification because the film was considered to be high impact. The particular scene that you refer to was a long sequence in the film but in fact it was implied sexual activity; it was not simulated sexual activity. Implied sexual activity is permitted both in MA and in R, and in R classification it may be realistically simulated. In this instance, although it was a long scene the board considered that it did fit into the R category because the amount of detail was higher than in MA but certainly did not exceed R.

Senator HARRADINE —Is it not a fact that the guidelines stipulate that realistic—that is, not implied—sexual activity is to be refused classification when it comes to R—sexual violence? For example, there is plenty of violence in this film. There is a scene that is certainly not implied—there is fellatio.

Mr Clark —There is a brief explicit depiction in the film but that was not associated with the rape scene.

Senator HARRADINE —No, it was not associated with the rape scene but it was there. When before has the classification board so allowed an explicit scene in R classification?

Mr Clark —The guideline is the general rule: simulation, yes; the real thing, no. So it does specify a general rule.

Senator HARRADINE —I know that, but I asked when?

Mr Clark —Brief explicit depictions of sexual activity were permitted in the film Romance, which was classified some four or five years ago now.

Senator HARRADINE —Can you remind me of that?

Mr Clark —I think the film Romance was classified some four or five years ago. It was classified RC by the board; it went to the Classification Review Board and was given an R classification.

Senator HARRADINE —For what?

Mr Clark —I am sorry, Senator, it predates my being on the board.

Senator HARRADINE —So you can only think of this?

Mr Clark —There was another film called In the Realm of the Senses—once again, classified for a brief background depiction—which was a 35-year-old Japanese film. That was submitted. The film Intimacy was another. That was under the old guidelines as well.

Senator HARRADINE —That will be interesting, Mr Clark. Did the OFLC acknowledge that when public comment was sought on developments and new guidelines there was no mention of the new impact approach, the focus on impact?

Mr Clark —We deliberately sought not to change the focus or the operation or the standards within the guidelines. So yes, the document, as ministers asked, is a simpler and clearer document. It brings together the considerations for the board around context and impact quite clearly, and also there were some elements of ambiguity in the old guidelines that are not there that we were able to clarify. So the document does not, in our view, contain changes, but the operational review will test that.

Senator HARRADINE —How?

Mr Clark —By looking at decisions taken over the year prior to the introduction of the new guidelines and by looking at the period since the introduction of the new guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —Why just a year?

Mr Clark —It seemed a logical step to consider the period immediately prior to and the period since.

Senator HARRADINE —When you say that they are merely guidelines, the whole lot are guidelines.

Mr Clark —Correct.

Senator HARRADINE —Does that mean that you can pick and choose what can come out of the guidelines on the basis of impact and context? You could excuse anything by adopting the context attitude.

Mr Clark —I do not think that is the intent of the guidelines. They are agreed to by ministers as a tool for use primarily by the board to assist them in their decision making. The board are there to apply the community standards that are contained within the act, the code and the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —This document is titled Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. You have appealed to us to recognise that these are mere guidelines, and in this particular case of Irreversible you have gone outside the guidelines.

Mr Clark —That is not the case. I would suggest that the board's decision is consistent with the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —Why? You have clearly gone out of the guidelines when it comes to explicit sex in a violent film.

Mr Clark —There is one brief moment of explicit sexual content in the film which is not inconsistent with decisions made with both the old guidelines and the new guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —That is an assertion made by you which will be tested, will it not, under the review?

Mr Clark —It will, Senator. Yes, I am asserting that, but that is what is contained within the board report in relation to this film. As you are aware, the review board has also considered this film and said that, if they were to review it, they would be unlikely to change that decision. So they also have applied the guidelines. As I understand it, there is to be a review by the Classification Review Board of this film anyway, so that will be a further test.

CHAIR —Which will either affirm or change the previous decision?

Mr Clark —Yes, that is correct.

Senator HARRADINE —Which will what?

Mr Clark —Either affirm or change the board's decision.

Senator HARRADINE —What will change the board's decision?

Mr Clark —The Classification Review Board will be conducting a review of the film at some point in the near future, and that will be a further test of the film in terms of the use of the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —And that was brought about by what action?

Mr Clark —The South Australian Attorney-General initially requested a review. The Attorney advised him that the matter had been looked at by the Classification Review Board and asked if he still wished to proceed. Attorney-General Atkinson has indicated that he wishes to proceed, and the process for a review of the film has begun.

Senator HARRADINE —By the same people who rejected—

Mr Clark —I am sorry, I cannot comment on the composition of the Classification Review Board or its procedure.

Senator HARRADINE —Why?

Mr Clark —I am the Director of the OFLC and chairman of the classification board, and we keep a good strong distance between the two boards.

Senator HARRADINE —That is admirable, but who can give me advice as to who will do this review? You mentioned that there is a review taking place. I am just asking the question: by whom?

Mr Clark —The convener of the Classification Review Board will be consulting with members of the Classification Review Board as to the procedure and who the members of the review board would be for this review, so I cannot answer that because that is something that they would be negotiating at the moment.

Senator HARRADINE —When will that be known?

Mr Clark —I should imagine this week, but as early as possible in the week is what I imagine they will be aiming for.

Senator HARRADINE —The decision regarding impact is a subjective decision, is it not?

Mr Clark —The guidelines are strictly that: they are guidelines. Therefore the board, in making its decisions, tries to be as objective as possible in using the instruments it has been given but, at the end of the day, yes, they have to make an on-balance decision. If that is subjective, that is what it is; but they are not making wayward decisions in relation to their statutory obligation.

Senator HARRADINE —On the question of the classification of computer games and so on, how do you go about that?

Mr Clark —There are two ways in which games are classified. Within the legislation, there is an authorised assessor procedure for the classification of games. The companies making a recommendation will send in a report with a recommendation for games up to and including the M classification.

Senator HARRADINE —I did not quite catch that.

Mr Clark —The companies make recommendations to the board in relation to the recommended classification for a game from G through to M, so there is a recommendation made by the company. We look at their report on a game and their assessment of the game. If we are not happy with it, we will call the game in to look at it; otherwise we may accept that we have a good report and the game is classified. A game which is MA 15+ must be submitted. The game must have a full report and supporting information. It must be demonstrated to the board and the board is also likely to want to play the game to test the content of the game. So MA 15+ is treated quite differently.

Senator HARRADINE —But with the others you rely on the industry, on the company that is selling the product. It is in their interest, is it not, to have it classified lower than it should be?

Mr Clark —This process that is followed is consistent with the legislation. The companies want to cooperate. Certainly they have an interest in getting the best possible classification, but we train their assessors. They have to behave responsibly in relation to this, otherwise their games will be scrutinised more, because we take very seriously the information they provide to us, and we seek to have a cooperative relationship with the games industry to ensure they are doing the right thing.

Senator HARRADINE —How?

Mr Clark —As I said, we provide training to them in relation to the assessment of games and we talk with the companies about our expectations in relation to the classification of games.

Senator HARRADINE —How many of those computer games under the 15+ which have received assessment from the company have been queried by the board?

Mr Clark —I do not have a figure to give you. I would have to look at that and talk with the senior classifiers in relation to those which they have sought further information on.

Senator HARRADINE —What sort of monitoring is done on those particular computer games?

Mr Clark —As I said, we will look at a game if we are not satisfied that the assessor's report necessarily accurately reflects the content of the game.

Senator HARRADINE —How do you know that?

Mr Clark —After working with games and their classification for some time, you do develop a degree of expertise. They follow particular genres, which are fairly predictable, they know at what level they are pitching a game and, generally speaking, there is a level of expertise which allows them to pick them fairly accurately.

Senator HARRADINE —What sort of consistent monitoring is undertaken on those particular recommendations for classifications coming from the industry? Your assessors view all of the MA+?

Mr Clark —MA 15+—yes, they do.

Senator HARRADINE —I am talking now about the lower classifications.

Mr Clark —The lower classifications are monitored by the two senior classifiers. One of their principal tasks is to monitor those and to refer games on for further consideration if they deem it necessary.

Senator HARRADINE —How many such classifications have been provided in the last six months?

Mr Clark —I cannot answer that question now. I can provide that information to you.

Senator HARRADINE —How many of those were referred for OFLC assessment rather than company assessment?

Mr Clark —I will seek to get that information for you.

Senator HARRADINE —Finally, I understand that the OFLC has classified the film The Cat in the Hat?

Mr Clark —Yes.

Senator HARRADINE —It is classified as G-rated?

Mr Clark —That is correct.

Senator HARRADINE —Are you aware of the classification given by the US in respect of this particular film, which is higher?

Mr Clark —I am not quite sure.

Senator HARRADINE —I am advised that it is and that the reason is that some parents will be concerned that there are some nasty innuendos included in the film which do not appear in the Dr Seuss book. For example, the cat digging with a hoe says, `I have a dirty ho,' implying a dirty prostitute. I assume that it is implying that he has a dirty prostitute. I cannot confirm that, because I have not seen it.

Mr Clark —He actually has a garden hoe and he says, `You dirty hoe.'

Senator HARRADINE —Yes, that is right.

Mr Clark —I think to take that as strong or even literal sexual innuendo in the film is probably taking it too far. I think I have had two letters in which this particular scene has been raised, but it is so simple that it really is pushing the interpretation.

Senator HARRADINE —I raise the matter because, as you know and as I know, the importance of a G rating is that it should be for kids to watch.

Mr Clark —I can only agree with you 100 per cent.

CHAIR —As there are no further questions for the Office of Film and Literature Classification, I thank Mr Clark, Mr Hunt and Mr Robinson for appearing.

(ARCHIVED) Censor's hoe, hoe to sexy innuendo. The Mercury 25.05.04 

******

Harradine was back in action the following day. This time Andree Wright from the ABA was questioned on the progression of their investigation into Hardcore Satellite TV. She claims that the final report is a couple of months away.

Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio: Australian Broadcasting Authority
Date: 25 May, 2004
Department: Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio
Database: Estimates Comm.
Committee name: ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Program: Australian Broadcasting Authority
Proof: Yes

Senator HARRADINE —I want to now go to the issue of satellite delivered pornography of various types, including hardcore pornography. I raised this matter in the last meeting of the estimates. Where is this all up to?

Ms Wright —My understanding is that it was raised with the department at the last estimates. I am able to advise you that since that time the ABA have initiated an investigation in that area and that we have issued notices under the Broadcasting Services Act to require certain information which is to be provided to us by Friday, 28 May, which is the end of this week. The information goes to establishing whether the service provider of those satellite services is an offshore entity and, if so, whether those in the intermediary chain may also be construed for the purposes of our act as a service provider.

Senator HARRADINE —Under the Broadcasting Services Act, is it not the duty of the ABA and its employees to know whether there has been a breach of the legislation or the provisions of the act? Should you not immediately have been able to determine that?

Mr Tanner —This is an exceptions based regime. The ABA's role is typically triggered by a complaint, although that was not the case here. We commenced investigation once the ABA itself became aware of the issue. It also is a regime which imposes only light regulatory requirements on what are seen as the least influential broadcasters. So, for example, for any service which fits the definition of open narrowcasting or subscription narrowcasting, there is no requirement to get a licence from the ABA. Their content is authorised by class licence. That means that the ABA is not even aware who that person is necessarily until it receives a complaint. So there is no inconsistency with the ABA's role in our not knowing that people are commencing narrowcasting services until we become aware of a problem. That is the way the exceptions based regulatory regime works.

Back before 1992 you could not broadcast without a piece of paper from the government. Since 1992 there has been a different regime and a number of things are authorised under class licences, which means the regulator does not know who is doing it. Having become aware of the problem, the proper thing for the ABA to do is to determine who is doing the elements of providing a broadcasting service, because they are the people that the Broadcasting Services Act regulates and imposes conditions on. We know people who are involved in this business, and they are the ones we are making inquiries of. The purpose of those inquiries is to establish who and also in what jurisdiction the people or entities are that are providing a broadcasting service, because they are the ones that the Broadcasting Services Act allows us to regulate. They are the ones on whom there is a set of conditions bearing on classified or unclassified material.

Senator HARRADINE —What will occur in the end? Will there be a determination or what?

Mr Tanner —There is a number of possibilities.

Senator HARRADINE —Like what?

Mr Tanner —I cannot pre-empt that.

Senator HARRADINE —No, you can tell us what the possibilities are.

Mr Tanner —Yes.

Senator HARRADINE —Can you do that?

Mr Tanner —We need to establish who is providing a broadcasting service. If the entity is an offshore entity, and we are pretty sure offshore entities are involved, if any of the onshore people or entities are also doing actions that would mean that they are providing a broadcasting service in the terms of our legislation, we would then be able to—and we are doing this in parallel—establish the relevant category of licence with greater certainty than we have now, although we have a pretty fair idea, and therefore what the applicable rules are and whether there is a breach of those rules. We can then consider what our options are for taking action if there is a breach of rules. If any inadequacy is shown in the regulatory regime, that is another group of issues we will either be able to fix or be able to take up with other people.

Without a broadcasting service, we have no jurisdiction. If the only entities we can find that are actually providing a broadcasting service are entirely offshore based, that may also pose some practical problems in terms of a certain jurisdiction. But the point is when we have a fix on which entities are providing the service—and it is very often the case when you have a service brought in from overseas that there is someone in Australia who can be held to be providing a broadcasting service because of their role in onselling, marketing or whatever that service—then we know whom we are dealing with and we can work out whether they are complying with the rules. So that is what we are endeavouring to do, and we are doing that as promptly as we can.

Senator HARRADINE —If they are entirely overseas based, you can recommend to the relevant minister amendments to the legislation.

Mr Tanner —We will exhaust everything within our power if we find there is a problem. If there is an inadequacy in the class licence conditions, for example, we could make a new class licence condition. But, if there are things that are outside our power to rectify, we would have to come back to the government.

Senator HARRADINE —When is this likely to be concluded? When are you wrapping this up?

Ms Wright —As I said, the information we have asked for by notice is due at the end of this week. Then we would need to consider that information, draft a report and provide that to the board for consideration. So I would think that we are a couple of months away from an outcome on that investigation. But it depends on the degree of difficulty that the material that we are provided with throws up for us. As Mr Tanner said, there are issues if the service provider is an offshore entity, and this is an area I think which is internationally recognised as a problem, which is the regulation of satellite services. It is certainly something that the European Union is turning its attention to. For example, if it were being broadcast effectively from Europe, if it is not illegal in the country of origin nothing could be done in that country to deal with that situation regardless of whether it was illegal here.

You may be aware that Australia has been active in this area and that we set in place transborder television broadcast principles as part of the Asia Pacific Forum in the late 1990s which meant that, if we were transmitting material from Australia into another country, that country could come to us if they had a problem with material. Also, following on from that,  the Broadcasting Services (International Broadcasting) Guidelines in 2002 substantially targeted that area to give it a legal status. But not all countries have reciprocated. They do not extend to us formally or legislatively the same rights as we are necessarily offering them. So the purpose of this investigation would be to establish who the service provider is, who the other providers are in the chain, if that is relevant, and the countries that those service providers are operating from.

Senator HARRADINE —And what you can do about it?

Ms Wright —Then the conclusion will be whether, if they are located within Australia or part of a chain, we can take action in that regard. If they are located internationally and there is no provision in place for us to take action, then that is going to be, I presume, a broader matter for government of international liaison and turning attention to how these problems can be resolved. As I said, I know it is a problem that the European Union is endeavouring to grapple with currently. So it is something that is on the international drawing board, but not all instances are covered. So our investigation will be to ascertain where the primary service provider is located.

Senator HARRADINE —Are you working with the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, on this matter—for example, as to what physical methods can be utilised to prevent these images coming across?

Ms Wright —I understand that we have had some preliminary discussions with the Communications Authority, but it is not yet clear how they would be able to assist us or work with us further on this until we have the information that we are seeking from notices.

Senator HARRADINE —I will put the rest on notice.

******

What a sweet week it has been seeing Trish (now destined to be know by the far more apt name of Trash) Draper fighting for her political survival. She is a strict morals campaigner who lectures others how they should live their lives. She was active in the call to see bans on LOLITA, BAISE-MOI and the introduction of the NVE rating.

Mike Seccombe 's article, A Reputation Trashed from the SMH 22.05.04 includes the following description of the woman.

It was August 12 last year, in the adjournment debate at the end of the parliamentary sitting day, and the Liberal MP Trish Draper was in full cry about the creeping tide of moral turpitude in schools. Her subject was a sex education kit which canvassed topics including masturbation, homosexuality and sex outside marriage.

"Nowhere in the program document are there sections on Christian values, family values or working towards marriage and monogamous relationships," she said. "This material represents a clear attempt to undermine the moral values held strongly by many parents in my electorate ..."

Such moralistic outpourings from Draper are common, which helps explain the malicious glee privately expressed by many of her parliamentary colleagues - and not just Labor ones - this week as she became embroiled in a scandal, headlined in this paper on Thursday as "The MP, her ex-lover and the dead model".

A poll published in today's Adelaide Advertiser shows that come the Federal Election she could be history. Remember, that despite doing 'nothing wrong', she'll pay the money back anyway.

******

The Classification Amendment Bill has been passing through the House of Representatives and the Senate since March. Its progression is reproduced here. Brian Harradine had his usual 'concerns'. 

SIMPLER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PASSED BY PARLIAMENT

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the creation of a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill was passed by both houses of Parliament today. The Bill, upon Royal Assent, will create common classifications for films and computer games based on the current classifications for films.

"The Bill responds to community demands for a simple, common-sense system that is the same across all classified products," Mr Ruddock said.

"Many parents are too busy to learn different classification systems, so a universal classification scheme is in everyone's interests."

Research by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) indicates that less than half of the population is aware of the computer games classification scheme and that consumers are very confused about the MA classification.

"Renaming the computer games classifications to mirror the well-known film classifications will assist parents in choosing games for their children" Mr Ruddock said. 

The Bill renames the classifications but does not affect the material permissible within each classification.  Consistent with the previous agreement of Censorship Ministers, the Bill does not introduce an R classification for computer games.

******

The lack of an R18+ for computer games has been back in the news.

Going graphic The Age 18.05.04

Takes a look at sex in computer games. This is in relation to a paper that Mark Finn, a lecturer in media studies at Swinburne University, delivered at the Free Play conference in Melbourne. He is quoted as saying:

"Apparently, it's OK to blow the heads off cops, but when it comes to having sex, that's a problem,"

(ARCHIVED) Games turn deadly serious. The West Australian 24.05.04 

Another article on the problems that the lack of an R18+ computer games rating causes. 

I've added the game HITMAN: CONTRACTS to the games database as the article claims the OFLC has complained about advertisements for an MA15+ game being screened before an M rated film.

******

It has been a quiet few months for Adult video bans. Now in May we have two new ones.

First up is the Joey Silvera production titled HELLCATS 2. Calvista submitted a 127min VHS and received an RC rating.

Gallery Entertainment also had an RC slapped on the 154min double-bill of SAVANNA TAKES CONTROL & VICIOUS STREAK. Both are Vivid Entertainment productions directed by David Stanley.

The following Media Release was issued by the Attorney General on April 28th.

DEPUTY CONVENOR OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointment of the Hon Trevor Griffin as Deputy Convenor of the Classification Review Board.

The Classification Review Board is responsible for reviewing (upon application) classification decisions regarding films, publications and computer games on behalf of the Australian, State and Territory Governments.

Mr Griffin has a Master of Laws from the University of Adelaide and was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1963.

Prior to his appointment, he was a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia (from 1978 to 2002). He served from 1979 to 1982 as South Australian Attorney-General and Minister for Corporate Affairs, and from 1993 to 2001 as Attorney-General and Minister for Consumer Affairs.

Mr Griffin is presently a visiting scholar at Flinders University law school and undertakes mediation work.

"I am pleased that Mr Griffin has agreed to provide his valuable skills and experience to assist the important work of the Classification Review Board," Mr Ruddock said.

Mr Griffin's appointment takes effect immediately and will conclude in April 2007.

For a second opinion of the man here is the Eros Association's Press Release from May 4th.

Arch Conservative Appointed to Top Censor Job

Australia’s adult goods and services industry association today criticised the appointment of former South Australian Attorney General Trevor Griffin as Deputy Convenor of the Classification Review Board as another blatant move to stack it with pro-censorship members. The appointment follows the rejection of an application for review of the film Irreversible by a family morals group.

Eros President and former Deputy Chief Censor David Haines said that Mr Griffin had shown himself to have the social agenda of an arch conservative like Fred Nile or Brian Harradine. This conservatism had been demonstrated many times during his tenure as Attorney General, including responsibility for the introduction of South Australia's draconian internet censorship regulations, and the banning of Passolini's Salo after it was passed by the Classification Review Board.

Mr Haines said that Mr Griffen was not supportive of a uniform federal scheme for the classification of films and publications, maintaining a separate Review body in South Australia and refusing to recognize the legal X classification for videos. He had also allowed South Australia to refuse classification to large numbers of Category 2 Restricted books that were legal in other states of Australia. He also played a major role in rejecting an R classification for erotic adult computer games. This has led to a situation in which computer games contain graphic violence but not even the mildest titillating nudity or sex in the MA category, the most restrictive classification level allowed for games.

Mr Haines said that the Eros Association strongly supported a transparent selection process with appointments to the Review Board made on merit.

******

As mentioned last update, the OFLC call for Public Submissions is under way. You have three more weeks to get your thoughts to them. With the appointment of Trevor Griffin we are in for a hard time ahead. Ask yourself how IRREVERSIBLE would have fared had he been on the Review Board at the time.

******

I've made a small change to the site. All the titles that have not had any official OFLC or Customs history are now in a separate Miscellaneous A-Z listing. The links from the list will take you to the same database that contains all titles. This should hopefully further clear up any confusion.

The Religious Right will definitely be making their voice heard in this Review. So it is extremely important to get the majority point of view over. You have until May 31st 2004 to make a submission. The past twelve months have seen some positive decisions by the OFLC. IRREVERSIBLE was passed, ICHI THE KILLER is through, presumably uncut, DRILLER KILLER and the game MANHUNT received MA15+ ratings. 

Negatives include the banning of the games SILVERBALL and I TOUCH. Hardcore films are still being banned and censored for showing brief scenes of PG rated violence. And who can forget KEN PARK!

Let them know your opinions on these matters.
Make your voice heard! 
A few lines in an e-mail is enough. 
Don't let this chance go by. 
You have one month.
GET WRITING!

The following is taken from the OFLC website, and provides details on making a submission.

Films (including videos and DVDs), and computer games are classified by the Classification Board in accordance with the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines. The Code and guidelines are agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers.

On 30 March 2003, the current Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (2003) came into effect. These guidelines superseded Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games (Amendment No.1) and Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes (Amendment No.3).

At the request of Government, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) is reviewing the initial twelve months of operation of the current guidelines.

Scope of Operational Review

******

The ABA has been somewhat distracted this week with the news of David Flint's love letters to Alan Jones. Despite this, they are soldiering on with their investigation into Hardcore Satellite Porn.

ABA chief information officer Jenny Brigg is quoted as saying

"The guts of the investigation is, is it really X and RC material that is being broadcast, as has been alleged? ... If it is X or RC, we know we're dealing with prohibited content.

"And the other thing is, who is providing the service? If it is someone overseas ... It doesn't mean we can't stop it, it just means we may have to look at what international agreements we have in place."

******

The March 2004 report Community Attitudes Towards Media Classification and Consumer Advice conducted by Michelle Spratt for the OFLC can be found here.

******

The full Review Board Report for IRREVERSIBLE has now been added.

******

A new addition to the database is Pixote. This had problems in 1982 when it was chosen to screen at the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals. Sadly it shows that the KEN PARK controversy is hardly new.

As reported last month, the availability of Hardcore Satellite TV stations has come to the attention of the ABA. I've since found out that the smut obsessed, Senator Brian Harradine was probably behind the push for an investigation. On the 16th of February, as part of the  Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, he put the following Questions on Notice to the ABA.

91. Is the Department aware that there are a number of satellite-based pornography channels broadcasting into Australia, including Free XTV (www.free-xtv-r.us), Sexz TV (www.sexz.tv) and Blue Kiss (www.bluekiss.tv)?

92. Are these pornography channels free of Australian ratings restrictions?

93. Does the Australian Government have any regulatory control over the operation of satellite pornography channels, which reach Australia?

94. Do these channels have Australian owners or operators? If so, does this give the Government the opportunity to regulate the activities of these broadcasters?

95. Given the pornography is broadcast via satellites including the Newskies NSS6 satellite, does the Government have the opportunity to negotiate with satellite owners to ensure that Australian ratings restrictions are complied with?

96.Is the Department investigating what to do about these pornography channels? What are the options?

******

The ABA issued a News Release, and its Terms of Reference on April 19th.

ABA commences investigation into adult satellite services

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has released terms of reference for an investigation into ‘adult services’ being broadcast into Australia from overseas via satellite. The ABA has received complaints concerning the apparent availability of ‘pornography’ on these adult services.

‘The broadcasting of program material that has been refused classification, or has been classified as ‘X’ by the Office of Film and Literature Classification is prohibited,’ said Professor David Flint, ABA Chairman. ‘A formal investigation will enable the ABA to consider all relevant material and reach a view on whether there has been a breach of the Broadcasting Services Act.’

The ‘adult services’ being investigated include: Free-XTV and Backroom, Sexz.TV and BlueKiss.

The investigation will be conducted into the following matters:

The ABA will seek further information from service providers before finalising a report.

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has released terms of reference for an investigation into ‘adult services’ being broadcast into Australia from overseas via satellite. The ABA has received complaints concerning the apparent availability of ‘pornography’ on these adult services.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of Reference for investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Authority into ‘adult services’ broadcast by satellite in Australia from overseas locations

A. Notice of investigation

1. The Australian Broadcasting Authority (the ABA) has decided to conduct an investigation under Division 2 of Part 13 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (‘the Act’) into the matters described in Part C of these terms of reference.

2. The investigation is conducted for the purposes of the performance or exercise of the functions and powers of the ABA under the Act, including the following:

Primary functions of the ABA – section 158

(a) to monitor compliance with codes of practice

(b) to monitor and investigate complaints concerning broadcasting services

(c) to take enforcement action under the Act

(d) to monitor, and to report to the Minister on, the operation of the Act.

Additional function of the ABA – sections 159 and 120

(a) to impose licence conditions on any relevant licence, including a class licence.

B. Background – legislation

3. The Act includes the following objects.

(a) to provide a regulatory environment that will facilitate the development of a broadcasting industry in Australia that is efficient, competitive and responsive to audience needs

(b) to encourage the provision of means for addressing complaints about broadcasting services

(c) to encourage providers of broadcasting services to respect community standards in the provision of program material

(d) to ensure that providers of broadcasting services place a high priority on the protection of children from exposure to program material which may be harmful to them.

4. The Act also

(a) charges the ABA with the responsibility for monitoring the broadcasting industry; and

(b) confers upon the ABA a range of functions and powers that are to be used by the ABA in a manner that, in its opinion, will produce regulatory arrangements that are stable and predictable and deal effectively with breaches of the rules established by the Act.

C. Matters to be investigated

Interpretation
5. In Part C of this notice, reference to the ‘adult services’ includes a reference to the following services:

(a) Free XTV and Backroom, both advertised on the internet at URL http://www.free-xtv.com/

(b) Sexz.TV advertised on the Internet at URL www.sexz.tv

(c) BlueKiss advertised on the Internet at URL www.bluekiss.tv.

Investigation

6. The investigation will be conducted into the following matters:

(a) Into which category of broadcasting service, listed in section 11 of the Act, do these adult services fall?

(b) What person or persons provide these adult services?

(c) Do these services comply with the Act and any applicable licence conditions and codes of practice, or any international cooperative agreements, particularly with regard to program content?

(d) What action, if any, should the ABA take in relation to its findings on the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) above?

D. Conduct of the investigation

7. In conducting the investigation, the ABA will consider such other matters as are necessary to address the issues identified in these terms of reference and may, if it is considered desirable and appropriate to do so, amend these terms of reference to include any additional issues that arise in the course of the investigation.

8. The investigation will be conducted using the ABA’s powers under the Act.

E. Relevant provisions

9. The provisions in the Act relevant to this investigation include: Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 16, 17, 158, 159 Part 8 Part 10 Divisions 1, 2 and 4 of Part 13 Schedule 2, Parts 1, 2, 6 and 7.

Dated: 15 April 2004.

In the article, 
ABA turns sights on satellite porn. The Age 19.04.04,
ABA investigator Jenny Brigg is quoted as saying:

"It's a test in that the legislation is clear, this sort of content is prohibited, but the question is, who is providing that content into Australia?"

"They look like they have got European bases but they are distributed in Australia and people are selling the cards and marketing them."

******

The Salt Shakers are yet another group from the Religious Right.

On March 30th they put the following news item on their website.

The L word - is all about ‘Lesbians and sex’ and it’s coming to a TV near you …

This program is due to start this Wednesday, March 31, at 10.30pm on all capital city and regional Channel 7 stations.

Channel Seven has been running a promo – It starts out with, "What is the L word?" Is it Love, is it lust and then goes on to say in bold print, it is Lesbian. While all this is happening there are images of women kissing, playing in the pool and in mildly sexual poses. The L word web site says “Sexuality is fluid. Whether you're gay, or you're straight, or you're bisexual... you just go with the flow.”

The L Word is about the trials and tribulations of a group of friends in L.A., most of who are lesbians. This is about lesbians seducing each other, lesbian sex, having babies by donor sperm, more L sex, some hetero sex and a lot of mixed up ‘relationships’!!!!

Write to Channel 7 Corporate management – Head Office Seven Network Limited Level 13, 1 Pacific Highway, North Sydney NSW 2060 Ph: (02) 9967 7903 Fax: (02) 9967 7972

http://seven.com.au/

Link for local contacts - http://sevencorporate.com.au/page.asp?partid=97

Write to the Programming Department - Channel Seven in your Capital City and your local Ch. 7 TV station. Your letter should include the following information:
• The date, time and location of the broadcast;
• The name of the program;
• Reason for your concern;
• Your name and address.

They seem to have had some success. Five companies, Roche, DaimlerChrysler, Allianz Australia, Centrum and Just Jeans have been persuaded to pull all their advertising from the show.

L's belles The Age 22.04.04

Peter Stokes from the Saltshakers is quoted as saying.

"The L Word is promoting a lifestyle choice that is wrong . . . lesbian mothers, threesomes, one-night stands."

Helen Razer takes a further look at the controversy in the following article.

Yikes, they're dykes! The Age 23.04.04

After receiving a number of e-mails from people unhappy with the decision, several of these companies are now franticly trying to deny that they were influenced by the group.

If any of them did get cold feet after receiving a letter from a minority group of religious fanatics, then they certainly do not deserve your business.

******

As reported last week, THE MAN BEHIND THE SUN will be screening in Melbourne during April and May. Here is Philippa Hawker 's Review of the film that appeared in The Age on Friday 23rd.

The Sydney Morning Herald recently covered how they are slowly taking over the Liberal (God's Own) Party.

Religious right crams into Lib branches. SMH 12.04.04

A push by right-wing religious groups to increase their numbers in the NSW Liberal Party has led to allegations of branch-stacking and greater prominence for a more conservative social agenda.

Already party moderates are claiming that right-wing Catholics, including members of the secretive Opus Dei organisation, have helped stack branches, taking control of the Young Liberals from the moderates for the first time in decades.

***

In God they trust. SMH 12.04.04

God is appearing in more and more places around the Federal Parliament, and among all sorts of people. Mike Seccombe, Aban Contractor, and Mark Metherell report on the growing link-up of church and state.

God moves in mysterious ways, and never more so than when He moves into politics. On Thursday, for example, the Liberal Party announced that its candidate for the seat of Greenway, centred around Blacktown, would be Louise Markus, a prominent member of Hillsong, Australia's largest church.

The US-style, high-energy, hand-clapping Pentecostal church, which draws its people from the Bible belt of Sydney's north-western suburbs, attracts more than 15,000 people each Sunday. Its Friday night youth meetings reportedly draw 2000, its children's meetings some 1600 and its women-only gatherings more than 1000.

******

Those of you in Melbourne may like to get along to the Australian Centre for the Moving Image during April and May. Golden Shadows will be presenting three rare big screen showings of the controversial MAN BEHIND THE SUN. This was originally banned by our censors in 1989, but was passed R18+ on appeal to the Review Board. The sequel, LABORATORY OF THE DEVIL remains banned in Australia.

Forget the trendy Euro-violence of Irreversible and Baise-Moi, Man Behind the Sun is a truly horrifying docu-drama.

Set in a Japanese terror camp in the end of World War II, the film exposes Japanese atrocities carried out against the Chinese under the rule of General Shiro Ishi, including terrible 'scientific experiments' to develop deadly bacterial plagues.

104 min, Hong Kong, 1988, 35mm, Mandarin with Engish and Chinese subtitles

Dates: Friday 23 April 9pm , Sunday 16 May 4pm, Friday 21 May 9pm

ACMI is at Federation Square, Melbourne (entry from Flinders Street). 

******

On March 24th the Attorney General issued the following News Release regarding Des Clarke's re-appointment as Director of the Classification Board.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has announced the re-appointment of Mr Des Clark as Director of the Classification Board. The re-appointment takes effect immediately and will conclude in April 2007.

The Board is responsible for making classification decisions regarding films, publications and computer games on behalf of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments.

Mr Clark has been Director of the Board and of the Office of Film and Literature Classification since 2000.

Since his initial appointment, Mr Clark has been instrumental in finalising several significant classification-related projects, including coordinating the agreement of State and Territory governments to the combined

Prior to his work at the OFLC Mr Clark worked as an independent consultant in strategic communications. He has been Deputy Chairman of the Australian Film Commission and Chairman of the Melbourne International Film Festival.

Mr Clark has served three terms as a Councillor of the City of Melbourne, including a term as Lord Mayor in 1992-93.

“I am pleased that Mr Clark has agreed to continue to provide his valuable skills and experience to assist the important work of the Classification Board,” Mr Ruddock said.

******

He issued a second News Release on March 24th regarding the Simpler Classification System for Films and Games. Apart from the G (8+) (General) games rating being dumped in favour of PG (Parental Guidance), all the other changes seem to be minor.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has announced the creation of a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill introduced in Parliament today, will create common classifications for films and computer games based on the current classifications for films.

“The Bill responds to community demands for a simple, common-sense system that is the same across all classified products,” Mr Ruddock said.

“Many parents are too busy to learn different classification systems, so a universal classification scheme is in everyone’s interests.”

Research by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) indicates that less than half of the population is aware of the computer games classification scheme and that consumers are very confused about the MA classification.

“Renaming the computer games classifications to mirror the well-known film classifications will assist parents in choosing games for their children” Mr Ruddock said.

The Bill renames the classifications but does not affect the material permissible within each classification. Consistent with the previous agreement of Censorship Ministers, the Bill does not introduce an R classification for computer games.

Existing Film Classification Types 
G (General)
PG (Parental Guidance) 
M (Mature) 
MA (Mature Accompanied) 
R (Restricted)
X (Restricted) 
RC(Refused Classification) 

Existing Computer Games Classification Types
G (General) 
G(8+)(General) 
M (15+)(Mature) 
MA(15+) (Mature Restricted) 
RC (Refused Classification)

Proposed Film and Computer Game Classification Types
G General
PG Parental Guidance
M Mature
MA 15+ Mature Accompanied
R 18+ Restricted (this category applies to films only) 
X 18+ Restricted (this category applies to films only)
RC Refused Classification

******

Siren Visual Entertainment have just released a great value double-bill of hentai. Unfortunately, they pre-cut both features before submission to the OFLC. CAMPUS and GIRL NEXT DOOR have therefore been added to the database.

******

Umbrella Entertainment has three Dario Argento Giallos out on April 21st. Despite being censored in many parts of the world, Argento's films have never had too many problems with our censors.

DEEP RED had an 80's VHS release on the Seven Keys label in a dubbed and shortened print. In 1994, SBS premiered the full Italian Language version, dupes of which became highly sort after by collectors the world over.

TENEBRAE was passed uncut by the OFLC  and was released in the early 80's by Palace Home Video.

PHENOMENA was also issued by Palace Home Video in the mid-80's. Despite having the shortened version title of CREEPERS, and quoting an 83min time on the box, it did in fact clock in at 105min. At the time the UK and US had to make do with the shorter cut.