The date for 9 SONGS to go before the Review Board has been set for January 17th.

******

A recent example of an X18+ being dropped to R18+ on appeal is the short film SHADOW THEATRE. The full Review Board report is now available.

******

A revised version of THE PUNISHER has now been rated MA15+. These are no details of what has been removed to secure this rating.

******

Those of you who missed ANATOMY OF HELL during its theatrical run can now catch up with it at home. Madman Entertainment released a rental DVD on December 22nd.

******

Three more previously banned Hardcore titles have been cut and passed X18+. These are ALL ABOUT SEX, TEENAGE SPERMAHOLICS #2  and UP'R CLASS.

Another new title to add to the database is ANAL SEDUCTION #1. It was rated RC in December.

******

The Australian Communications Authority has launched an enquiry into what type of content should be allowed on mobile phones.  The deadline for submissions is February 25th 2005.  

The following media release was issued by the ACA on December 16th.

ACA proposes rules for adult content on mobile phones

The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) today called for public feedback on proposed new rules to protect consumers, especially children, accessing new premium services on their mobile phones.

Releasing a discussion paper with the new rules today, Acting Chairman Dr Bob Horton said the ACA was focussing on issues raised by premium services accessed through SMS, MMS, and mobile carrier portals.

Mobile premium services provide content such as sports scores, streaming of audio and video music clips and sports highlights, as well as downloads of mobile ring tones, wallpaper, games and applications.

“Our intention is to promote a sustainable and responsible market for premium services accessed by mobiles,” Dr Horton said.

“The proposed new rules address community expectations about preventing explicit adult content being accessed on mobile phones and restricting access to other adult content to people who are 18 and over.

“If inappropriate material is found to be accessible through mobile phones, the rules give the ACA the ability to have it removed quickly,” he said.

“The rules are also about providing safeguards for children using chat rooms through their mobile phones. For example, the rules specify that chat rooms must be monitored to protect children from behaviour such as paedophile grooming.”

Dr Horton said it was vitally important to ensure a safe environment for the use of mobile phones. This was a precondition if consumers were to get full value from premium services.

“The ACA is looking for comment on whether the proposed rules, such as monitoring of chat rooms, will be effective and workable both for consumers and phone companies in creating this safe environment,” he said.

“The new rules will also require phone companies to establish proper arrangements for handling complaints about mobile premium services,” he said. “Consumers will have to be informed about the costs of mobile premium services and how they can unsubscribe to services they no longer want.”

The proposed rules and discussion paper are on the ACA website. The deadline for comments is 25 February 2005.

“This is a completely new area of regulation and the ACA is very keen to have as much feedback as possible on the proposed new rules,” Dr Horton concluded.

Public meetings to discuss issues raised in the paper will be held in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra in February 2005. Full details will be publicised and available on the ACA website.

The Australian Communications Authority is a government regulator of telecommunications and radiocommunications.

You can find out how to make a submission at the ACA website.

Porn on mobiles to face tight regulation. SMH 15.12.04

Users of mobile phones will soon be able to dial 195-PORN.

But tough rules aimed at protecting children from adult services, expected to range from blue video to sex text, will require potential users to first show photograph identification and request access in writing.

A draft regulation on adult and premium services, released yesterday by the Australian Communications Authority, bans content which has been rated X or Refused Classification by the film and video censor.

MA or R content will be limited to phone numbers prefixed 195 and 196, and available only to users aged over 18.

******

Some advice from the OFLC to families this summer.

22nd December 2004
Media Release 

Know more about your entertainment this summer

Along with trips to the beach, summer holidays are the time for visits to the movies and lazy days and nights spent watching DVDs and videos. The OFLC wants to remind parents and carers that the classification symbols and consumer advice featured on films, DVDs and videos are designed to provide information about their content and help them make decisions for the young people in their care.

Director of the OFLC, Des Clark said, “Trailers and reviews can tell us a lot about the films our children and teenagers want to watch, but classification information – the symbol and the consumer advice - is specifically designed to inform about the level and strength of their content.”

It is important that parents and carers are aware of the meaning conveyed by G, PG, M and MA15+.

There is a popular misconception that G and PG indicate children’s movies. In reality, G means the content of a film is such that it is suitable for all audiences. There are many G films at the local video shop that would not be interesting to children and teenagers.

PG means that parental guidance is recommended for children and young teenagers when they are viewing these films. The consumer advice allocated to each film highlights the elements that make it PG rather than G.

This summer, a number of films targeted at children and older audiences are classified PG. The Incredibles carries the consumer advice, “medium level violence, mature themes”. Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events carries “mature themes, some scenes may frighten young children”. Whereas the more adult-skewed film, The Phantom of the Opera has consumer advice, “medium level violence” and the big screen wildlife documentary spectacular, Deep Blue, has “predatory animal violence”. The consumer advice in each case identifies content that may require guidance for youngsters.

The M classification means the film is recommended for mature audiences aged 15 years and older. The horror film The Grudge is classified M with consumer advice, “horror theme”, and the action film Ocean’s Twelve is M with the consumer advice, “low level coarse language”. 

G, PG and M are advisory classifications. There is no legal restriction imposed by them.

MA15+ is a restricted classification. It means that the film is legally restricted to people aged 15 and over. At cinemas, this means children and teenagers aged under 15 can only be admitted if accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. MA15+ videos and DVDs cannot be sold or hired to under 15s.

Films classified MA15+ this summer include the action vampire film Blade: Trinity which carries the consumer advice, “medium level violence, medium level coarse language”, and the black comedy Bad Santa with consumer advice “frequent coarse language, sexual references“.

“In today’s multi-media entertainment world, where children and young people are increasingly influenced by saturation marketing campaigns, the OFLC recognises the challenges parents face in making informed choices about their family’s entertainment”, observed, Des Clark. “The classifications and consumer advice allocated to a film are intended to give assistance in this regard.”

******

The full Review Board report has now been released for COLLATERAL. The distributor's request to have the rating lowered from MA15+ to M was rejected.

6 October 2004

MEMBERS:
 Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor)
Dr Robin Harvey
Mr Robert Shilkin

APPLICANT: United International Pictures Pty (UIP) represented by Mr Michael Selwyn, Managing Director.

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Collateral (the film) MA15+ with the consumer advice ‘Medium level violence’.

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film MA15+ with the consumer advice ‘Strong violence’.

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 of the Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines.

Three essential principles underlie the use of the 2003 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines), determined under s.12 of the Act:

• The importance of context

• Assessing impact

• Six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

3. Procedure

The Review Board met on October 6, 2004 in response to the receipt of a valid application from the applicant UIP. After viewing the film, receiving a written submission from Ms Liz Drew, print control manager, on behalf of UIP and written and oral submissions from Mr Michael Selwyn, Managing Director, on behalf of the applicant, the Review Board met in camera to consider its decision.

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:

(i) UIP’s application for review;

(ii) UIP’s written and oral submissions;

(iii) The film;

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act;

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with s.6 of the Act

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and

(vii) The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003.

Max, a taxi driver (Jamie Foxx), is taken hostage by Vincent, a contract killer (Tom Cruise). The killer uses Max to drive to each murder scene. Max has to develop his own personal strengths to save himself and Vincent’s final victim, an attorney whom Max has met earlier and to whom he is attracted.

The first murder goes “wrong” when Vincent tosses the body out the window and it lands on Max’s car. From then on, Max is embroiled in increasing scenes of violence with it appearing likely that he will not live out the night, as Vincent performs each “kill” “taking out” key witnesses in an upcoming drugs trial.

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes particularly worthy of mention under various classifiable elements:

(a) Themes – At approximately 57 minutes Vincent tells Max that his father used to get drunk and beat up his mother and him and, as a result of one beating, he killed his father. Vincent states that he was 12 when this happened. Seeing Max’s horror at the story Vincent says that he was “just kidding” and that his father died of liver disease.

The scene has moderate impact and is justified in the context of the story line of the film.

Throughout the film, is the theme of death and killing as a means of earning a living. Vincent attempts to justify his “work” as “just a job” and that those that he is killing are “villains”. However, this thesis doesn’t hold for his last intended victim – the attorney Annie (Jada Pinkett-Smith), nor for the FBI agents that are killed or wounded. The theme is of strong impact but its treatment was such that it did not warrant consumer advice.

(b) Violence – Given the storyline it is to be expected that the film contains violence. However, it is the treatment of the violence that determines classification.

The film contained several scenes of strong violence – including the night club scene at approximately 82 minutes where an FBI agent is shown with blood coming from his knee, where Vincent knifes another agent, where Vincent shoots several agents and security guards and where Max is shot at. Further, at 101 minutes a security guard is shown on the floor lying with blood pooling around him and then at 104 minutes Max shoots Vincent and there is blood spray from Vincent’s ear, there is an exchange of gun shots. At 110 minutes Vincent asks “If I die do you think anyone will notice?” and he then dies on the train.

Apart from these individual scenes there are several other scenes of violence (approximately 11 minutes where the first body falls on the cab, blood is shown on its face; at 38 minutes another shooting with accompanying blood spatter; at approximately 45 minutes another “kill” where Vincent shoots his victim in his “traditional” three-shot pattern – two to the head and one to the heart with accompanying blood spatter; at 46 minutes Vincent grabs Max by the throat; at approximately 55 minutes a mortuary assistant is showing a detective one of the bodies with Vincent’s “kill pattern”, the body is covered in blood; at approximately 60 minutes Vincent threatens to execute Max’s mother who is in hospital; at approximately 81 minutes Vincent “knee caps” security guards and takes one hostage; at 91 minutes the taxi crashes with some injury sustained by the occupants; at 92 minutes Vincent starts hitting Max through the back window; at approximately 93 minutes a police officer sees the body of the first “kill” in the boot of the cab and arrests Max at gun point). While these scenes are mostly of moderate impact the cumulative impact of them coupled with the specific scenes outlined above ensure that the overall impact of the film is strong.

(c) Language – the language used in the film has moderate to strong impact. Instances such as “son of a bitch”, “bullshit”, “shit happens”, “fuck off” or “get in the fuckin’ car” or “give me your fuckin’ wallet” were relatively frequent but not considered to be overly aggressive. At approximately 43 minutes is an instance of strong, aggressive coarse language (“Get the motherfucker off my face”) and at approximately 98 minutes there is another (“shoot my ass in and go fuck yourself”). However, given the context of the film and the likely audience it was not considered that the overall impact of the language used was more than moderate.

The elements of sex and nudity were not present and the treatment of the element relating to drugs was so minor as to be only of a mild impact (some implicit drug use in the night club scene at approximately 82 minutes).

The Review Board based its decision to classify the film Collateral ‘MA15+’ with the consumer advice ‘Strong violence’ on the content of the film as set out in 5 and the findings on material questions of fact at 6 above.

Mr Selwyn submitted that because the film concerned contract killings and that the treatment of each death scene was restrained that the impact of the theme of death and killings was moderate. Whilst not necessarily accepting Mr Selwyn’s reasoning, the Review Board found that the treatment of the theme was moderate in the context of the film.

It was Mr Selwyn’s submission that the violence was restrained, and in context given the film’s genre and the “strength of the film”. He also stated that the film had “literary merit” and that the intended audience of the film was for an older audience and that the restrictive classification sent “the wrong message”. He submitted further that, while he considered the film to be unsuitable for those under 15, the classification needed to be merely advisory only and not restrictive.

Mr Selwyn is a regular, but not frequent, representative who appears before the Review Board. His views and submissions are always considered with great interest by Review Board members. However, on this occasion the Review Board did not accept his submission that any perceived literary or artistic merit in any way mitigated the impact of the violence contained within the film.

Mr Selwyn also submitted that the character of the film was such that the impact of any violence was diminished. Again the Review Board did not accept Mr Selwyn’s submission on this aspect of the film.

The Review Board therefore found that the treatment of the strong violence was justified by context. Further, the Review Board found that the impact of the material was strong, but not so high as to warrant a more restrictive rating than the already legally restrictive ‘MA15+’ classification. However, the Review Board found that to allow unrestricted viewing to persons under 15 years would fail to protect minors who would likely to be harmed or disturbed by the film.

While the classifiable elements and the impact in the overall context of the film Collateral did not justify a ‘R18+’ classification, they did make the film unsuitable for persons under 15 years of age and warranted specific consumer advice relating to the strong violence contained in the film.

******

Also released is the Review Board report for THE PACIFIER. Here it was agreed that advertising for the film could screen with those of any classification.

27 October 2004
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW

MEMBERS: 
Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor)
Ms Kathryn Smith
Ms Jan Taylor

APPLICANT: Buena Vista International (Australia) Pty Ltd (BVI)

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to grant a Certification of Exemption for a Film for Advertising Purposes for the film The Pacifier, with M conditions.

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) granted a Certificate of Exemption for a Film for Advertising purposes for The Pacifier (the film.)

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 of the Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. Part 3, Division 2 of the Act provides that a certificate of exemption may be granted in relation to an unclassified film for public exhibition that complies with the Classification (Eligible Films) Determination 2002 (Determination), for advertising purposes.

The Determination sets out the conditions for advertising material once an eligible film has been approved for exemption from classification for advertising purposes.

3. Procedure

Having earlier received a valid written application for review, three members of the Review Board viewed the advertisement for the film at the Review Board’s meeting on 27 October 2004.

The Review Board then met in camera to consider the matter.

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:

(i) BVI’s application for review;

(ii) BVI’s written submission;

(iii) the advertisement for the film (the advertisement);

(iv) the relevant provisions in the Act;

(v) the relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with s.6 of the Act; and

(vi) the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003;

(vii) the Classification Board’s report on the matter;

(viii) the relevant provisions in the Determination.

The advertisement depicts a Navy SEAL who is assigned to protect five children as a matter of ‘national security’.

The Review Board found that the advertisement contained humorous depictions of a trained Navy SEAL attempting to discipline and control five children of varying ages and gender, in the course of his duties. One such depiction was of the Navy SEAL placing diapers and juice boxes in his weapons belt.

The Review Board based the decision to grant a Certificate of Exemption for a Film for Advertising purposes for the film on the content of the advertisement as set out in five and six above.

From the content of the advertisement, the Review Board determined that the film’s classification is likely to be PG, therefore, the Review Board granted a Certificate of Exemption for a Film for Advertising purposes for the film. Accordingly, the film can be advertised with films of any classification for public exhibition, until such time that the film is classified.

******

The latest Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship) report is out now. Probably the biggest news is there has been some movement on altering the Film Festival Exemption guidelines. Hopefully this will prevent a repeat of the KEN PARK saga.

Film Festival Exemption Guidelines. 
Ministers approved the amended Film Festival Guidelines and agreed to the public release of the amended Film Festival Guidelines; 

Film Festival Guidelines 
Exemption for RC films. Ministers agreed that jurisdictions interested in developing guidelines to exempt film festivals from the classification scheme would develop options for consideration;

ANNUAL REPORT STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL CENSORSHIP 2003 – 2004 

 Introduction 

This report contains significant decisions made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) Censorship during the 2003-2004 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 2003 – 2004 

SCAG-Censorship meetings involve Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with censorship responsibilities. 

At the end of 2003 – 2004, the Ministers responsible for censorship were all Attorneys-General, with the exception of the Queensland Minister (Minister for Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading) and the Western Australian member (Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Justice). 

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP – from 7 October 2003 (Commonwealth) 

The Hon Jon Stanhope (ACT) 

The Hon Bob Debus (NSW) 

The Hon Dr Peter Toyne (NT) 

The Hon Margaret Keech (Qld) from 12 February 2004 

The Hon Michael Atkinson – from 29 August 2003 (SA) 

The Hon Judy Jackson (Tas) T

he Hon Rob Hulls (Vic) 

The Hon Michelle Roberts (WA) 

The Hon Margaret Wilson (NZ) 

The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC was Australian Attorney-General until 6 October 2003. 

The Hon Merri Rose (QLD) was Minister until 14 January 2004. 

The Hon Peter Beattie (QLD) was Minister from 15 January 2004 until 11 February 2004. 

The Hon Paul Holloway (SA) was Minister until 29 August 2003. 

Meetings 

SCAG-Censorship met once during the reporting period to discuss censorship matters. This meeting took place on 13 November 2003 in Hobart.

Censorship Officials met on 16 October 2003 to develop issues for the consideration of Ministers prior to the meeting. Officials also met on 12 February 2004 and on 26 June 2003, to consider among other issues, common enforcement issues and opportunities to harmonise enforcement legislation. 

Decisions 

The significant decisions of Censorship Ministers included: 

• Film Festival Exemption Guidelines. Ministers approved the amended Film Festival Guidelines and agreed to the public release of the amended Film Festival Guidelines; 

• Film Festival Guidelines – Exemption for RC films. Ministers agreed that jurisdictions interested in developing guidelines to exempt film festivals from the classification scheme would develop options for consideration; 

• Community Assessment Panels. Ministers agreed to the next three CAPS would take place in Melbourne, Canberra and Alice Springs and agreed to the proposed funding arrangements for CAPS; The CAPS scheme is designed to explore the extent to which the Classification Board is making decisions regarding films and computer games in accordance with community standards. This year, for the first time, the panels assessed computer games as well as films. 

• National Classification Code. Ministers agreed that revised code would come into force at same time as the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Act 2004; 

• SCAG – Censorship Annual Report. Ministers agreed to the public release of the SCAG – Censorship Annual Report for 2002-03. 

• Also, in March 2004 Censorship Ministers agreed to minor refinements to the amendments to the names of the classification types agreed at the April 2003 meeting. Ministers agreed that the MA classification type for films and the MA (15+) classification for computer games would be renamed MA 15+. 

• Also, in May 2004, the NSW Censorship Minister advised Ministers of a direction he had issued to the Director of the Classification Board pursuant to section 51(2) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (NSW). That direction pertained to Sydney Film Festival exemption applications. 

Communiqués 

Two communiqués were released by SCAG-Censorship during the reporting period. The communiqués were: 

• Community assessment panels to test film classification (13 November 2003); 

• Film and Computer Games symbols to change from MA 15+ to A 15+ Accompanied. (13 November 2003) S

ubsequently amendment was made to some aspects of the proposed legislation. The following news release from the Australian Attorney-General is relevant. 

• Simpler classification system passed by Parliament (13 May 2004) 

Copies of the communiqués and news release 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, Ms Patricia Flanagan, Senior Executive, Strategy and Communication, performed secretariat functions for SCAG-Censorship. The secretariat can be contacted at: Locked Bag 3 HAYMARKET NSW 1240 Telephone: (02) 9289 7100 Facsimile: (02) 9289 7101 Email: oflcswitch@oflc.gov.au 

******

Loophole puts illegal X-rated porn in stores. The Age 02.12.04

Reports on the 5000 signature petition tabled in the Victorian Parliament on December 1st by the Liberal opposition member Bruce Atkinson. It calls for the sale of X18+ rated films in Victorian Adult stores.

Pirated and unclassified pornographic films are increasingly being sold at weekend markets, service stations and suburban delicatessens because of an unwillingness to enforce Victoria's prohibition against X-rated material.

Under existing laws, it is illegal to sell non-violent erotic films in Victoria, but it is legal to buy and possess them.

Adult industry groups say the conflict has resulted in a thriving blackmarket for pirated, often unclassified pornographic videos and DVDs.

"It's being sold in inappropriate places and in all likelihood has not been classified," said Fiona Patten, spokeswoman for the Eros Foundation, which represents the adult goods and services industry. "It's hard enough controlling what (children) can watch on the internet, let alone finding out that you're finding X-rated material in local video stores or at weekend markets."

Despite the sale of X-rated adult films being illegal, The Age yesterday visited two city sex shops and found a range of X-rated videos and DVDs with titles like Pirate Extreme Fetish and Rubber Kiss.

******

On a related note, the following media release was issued by the Democrats on December 9th.

SENATOR BRIAN GREIG AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS ATTORNEY GENERAL & JUSTICE SPOKESPERSON

ADULT SEX CONTENT NEEDS UNIFORM VIDEO LAWS

The 'dogs breakfast' of classification laws for sexually explicit videos, DVD's, books and video games around the States and Territories need to be made uniform with a national code.

Australian Democrats' Attorney General and Justice spokesperson Senator Brian Greig, says the inconsistency with State, Territory and Federal laws in this area has created a booming black market in the trade which sometimes contains child pornography.

"We call on all State Labor Governments to fall into line with Commonwealth legislation on film and literature classifications, and help stamp out this insidious black market," Senator Greig said.

The Senate today passed the Classification Amendment Bill, including some clumsy elements which now mean that police officers in the States can prosecute people for selling Federally classified, lawful materials.

Senator Greig says it is a ridiculous situation that State police can prosecute people for selling a product that has passed all the requirements of the Federal Office of Film and Literature Classification.

"All State Censorship Ministers accept the Commonwealth Classification Code, when they sit down as a group to discuss censorship issues in Canberra, but when they go home they enact or maintain laws which are completely at odds with the National Code," Senator Greig said.

"How can you have one moral standard for Australians in Victoria, for example, and another for those living in Queensland or Western Australia?".

Senator Greig says the discrepancies between classifications at Federal and State level have a direct impact on black market operations, and may be fuelling the trade in child pornography.

"With the States failing to adopt the same 'X' classification system that operates lawfully in the ACT and the NT, the significant demand for 'X' rated materials in other jurisdictions has spawned a huge and unregulated black market which is now beyond police powers to monitor.

"Only a standardised and Commonwealth code which allows the lawful sale of these materials in all jurisdictions can stamp this out and scuttle its criminal operatives," Senator Greig said.

******

Meanwhile, over in WA the Liberal party is calling for less uniform censorship laws between the States and Territories.

The following press release was issued by the WA leader of the opposition Colin Barnett on December 5th. You will remember that it was a complaint from WA that saw MANHUNT lose its MA15+ rating and be banned.

Coalition will restore State’s censorship powers 

A Coalition Government will take back the right to ban video games, movies and other publications the community believes are overly violent or contain content that could harm Western Australian children.

Launching the Coalition position statement Protecting Our Children: A Commonsense Approach to Classification and Censorship with Shadow Children’s Minister Barbara Scott today, Opposition Leader Colin Barnett said Western Australia should have the power to overrule national Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) ratings in the interests of protecting WA children.

The commitment also includes:

· A plan to present a formal request to the Federal Government and State Attorneys General to change guidelines for computer game classifications to prevent children accessing material containing excessive violence or gratuitous sexual imagery.
· Lobbying for the introduction of G rating sub-categories to ensure material within the classification contains age-based advisory categories to help parents more accurately choose age-appropriate material for their children.
· A plan to formally request the removal of an allowance for “discreet” drug use and nudity to be “justified by context” in some G-rated material.
· A range of proposals to improve restrictions to the access of inappropriate Internet material by children.

“By taking back WA’s censorship powers, the Coalition is putting in place a safety net that allows the State Government to immediately deal with inappropriate publications that fall through the cracks of the national censorship program,” Mr Barnett said.

“The Coalition recognises that there is merit in the Federal censorship system but there is little doubt that material is sometimes released with inappropriate classifications that allow it to be accessed by children. What the Coalition is proposing is a system that can deal with that eventuality swiftly.”

Mr Barnett said a prime example of why the State needed censorship powers was the MA15+ rating of the Manhunt video game, which encouraged players to kill in the most gruesome and violent manner possible.

It took lobbying from Mrs Scott before the video game was declassified so that it could not be sold or rented to WA children.

“Clearly the classification given to this video game was inappropriate, yet it took months for it to be withdrawn. Under the changes the Coalition would introduce, the State Government could have declassified the game immediately and stopped more WA children being exposed to it,” Mr Barnett said.

Mrs Scott said that as well as re-introducing the State’s censorship powers, the Coalition would ask State and Federal Attorneys General to alter the guidelines for the classification of computer games to prevent children accessing games that contained excessive violence or gratuitous sexual imagery.

It would also lobby for the introduction of aged based advisory categories such as G, G8+ and G13+.

“In 2003, Attorney General Jim McGinty supported the introduction of new classification guidelines that allow drug use and nudity to be displayed within the limits of G ratings,” Mrs Scott said.

“The allowance for “discreet” drug use and for nudity to be “justified by context”, as set out by the OFLC is inappropriate for viewing designed largely for children.

“The introduction of G rating subcategories will allow the G rating to better cater for the varying developmental levels of children under the age of 15 and restore parental confidence in the classification.”

The Coalition will also monitor increasing use of the Internet and its impact on underage consumers by:

· Initiating a process of constant review to identify controls that can effectively restrict children’s access to inappropriate material on the internet;
· Examining options to provide families with the means of restricting children’s access to inappropriate material on the Internet, including software subsidies and education campaigns for children and parents;
· Implementing formal monitoring of web marketing practices aimed at underage consumers;
· Developing and regulating a Code of Practice for the publication of adult oriented material on the Internet from within Western Australia; and
· Maintaining pressure at a national and international level to establish and enforce standards that ensure children are protected from exposure to inappropriate materials on the Internet.

“The community expects leadership from Government on these issues and that is exactly what the Coalition plans to provide,” Mr Barnett said.

The Protecting Our Children: A Commonsense Approach to Classification and Censorship position statement is available on the Leader of the Opposition’s website at www.loop.wa.gov.au.

******

The computer game POSTAL 2 has been banned in New Zealand. Despite there being an R18+ games rating, this now joins MANHUNT on the the Kiwi's prohibited list.

The original POSTAL was banned by our OFLC in 1997, this sequel was never picked up for distribution in Australia.

The following press release was issued by the New Zealand OFLC on November 29th.

How the banning of Postal 2 affects you

The Office has classified the PC game Postal 2 as "objectionable" meaning that it is banned in New Zealand. It has been banned 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 Postal 2 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 classifying Postal 2, the Office found that:

The game is designed, and has the capacity, to allow the player to test how much violence and humiliation he or she can inflict on human beings and animals in a variety of everyday settings and circumstances.

The player’s ability to elect the amount, type and speed with which the violence is escalated into extreme cruelty requires an antisocial attitudinal shift (and reinforces such attitudes amongst those who already have them) that is likely to be injurious to the public good.

One of the consequences of the ban is that it is now illegal, under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, to possess Postal 2 in New Zealand. Anyone who possesses this game is liable to a fine of $2,000 (s131). Anyone who supplies, distributes, exhibits, displays or advertises Postal 2 could be imprisoned for up to a year or fined $20,000. Incorporated distributors and retailers could face a fine of $50,000 (s124). Likewise any person importing Postal 2 risks seizure of the game as well as 6 months in jail or a fine of $10,000 (s209 of the Customs and Excise Act).

The game has not been available through shops in New Zealand but any person in possession of a copy should either destroy it or send it to the Department of Internal Affairs Censorship Compliance Unit (PO Box 805, Wellington).

Bans are not lightly entertained. When they are imposed, it is because there is no other way of mitigating the risk of injury to the public good. In this case, the need to protect the public good from injury outweighed the right of individuals to entertain themselves with the callous and brutal gameplay in Postal 2.

******

This week the ACT Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2004 was on the agenda. 

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004-2005 Week 1 Hansard (9 December) . 

Page.. 2

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2004

Mr Stanhope, pursuant to notice, presented the bill, its explanatory statement and a Human Rights Act compatibility statement.

Title read by Clerk.

MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra-Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (10.35): I move:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2004 will amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995 to implement changes to the national classification code, harmonise the act with the Criminal Code 2002 and make other technical amendments.

Under the 1995 intergovernmental censorship agreement, the commonwealth, states and territories agreed to the creation of a cooperative scheme for censorship in Australia. The national classification code is established under commonwealth legislation, and classification decisions in relation to particular films are made by the commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification. However, the states and territories are responsible for the enforcement of classification decisions in relation to films, computer games and publications.

The underpinning principles of the national classification code are that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; and community concerns need to be taken into account about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

The national classification code sets out the criteria for assessing a film as being at a particular classification level, such as G, PG, MA and 15+. Classification designations let families know what is in a movie, computer game or publication. Classification and consumer advice decisions are based on the classifiable elements in a movie, computer game or publication. Classifiable elements include violence, sex, themes such as suicide, racism and corruption, course language, drug use and nudity.

Changes to the national classification code have recently been agreed to by the commonwealth, states and territories. The modified classification system will enhance consumer awareness of the age restriction associated with particular films and computer games by including an age specification as part of particular classification symbols. For example, R will become R 18+. These changes will highlight the distinction between the advisory categories, to which no age specification is attached-for instance, G, PG and M-and the restricted categories of film, X 18+, R 18+ and MA 15+.

Advisory classifications are not restricted to anyone, regardless of age. These classifications are a recommendation only, and parents are encouraged to advise their children whether these movies, computer games and publications are suitable. They also assist adults in making informed choices prior to viewing a particular film or purchasing a publication.

Australian legislation recognises that some movies, games and publications require a mature perspective. The protection of children from exposure to unsuitable and explicit content is an important objective of the Australian classification system. Such material is classified in legally restricted categories.

The changes are a follow-on from the creation of a single set of classification guidelines for both films and computer games in 2003. The highest permissible classification for computer games will remain MA 15+. The amendments to classifications that are made by this bill are complementary to the changes to the national classification code made by the commonwealth earlier this year, following the agreement of censorship ministers. The states and the Northern Territory either have made or are in the process of making these amendments as part of the national cooperative scheme.

A system of transitional measures under the commonwealth act will allow films classified under the old system to continue to be exhibited, which will minimise any inconvenience to businesses involved in the film and computer game industry in complying with the new classification system. Amending the classification act has also given me the opportunity to introduce further technical amendments that will streamline the act with the Criminal Code 2002 and resolve a potential difficulty with evidentiary certificates issued by the commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification.

The bill has also been carefully considered in terms of its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 2004. In a small number of provisions in the bill there are some limitations on the rights of the accused in court proceedings so that the right of children to be protected from exposure to violent and sexually explicit material can be guaranteed. The protection of children from exposure to unsuitable and explicit content is an important objective of the Australian classification system.

Of necessity, the application of the Human Rights Act in circumstances such as this does require some value judgment to be made. In this case, a value judgment has been made by the government that these limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I draw the attention of members to these provisions and also to the discussion of these issues contained in the explanatory statement. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Since June we have had one game per month banned.  SHELLSHOCK NAM'67, MANHUNT,  Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude and SINGLES-FLIRT UP YOUR LIFE all hit with RC ratings. This is the worst year so far! If an R18+ rating existed for games then all of these titles would be passed with no problems.

In this case there is little to be gained from complaining to the OFLC. They are only following the guidelines for what can be allowed in the top MA15+ games rating. 

Instead make your opinions known to the politicians. The NSW and Victorian governments have made some encouraging comments about their willingness to support an R18+ rating.

******

Still no news of an appeal date for 9 SONGS. The page has been updated to include the latest media coverage.

******

Another update, and more banned Adult titles to report.  Joey Silvera's Rogue AdventureS #23 and ASIAN LOVE DOLLS #2.

******

The appeal against the MA15+ awarded to SIDEWAYS has been successful.

Sideways classified M upon review

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a majority 2 to 1 decision, that the film, Sideways, directed by Alexander Payne, is classified M with the consumer advice, “Frequent coarse language, Sex scenes, Sexual references, Alcohol and depression themes”.

M is an advisory classification. Films classified M are not recommended for persons under 15 years of age. There are no legal restrictions on access.

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, the film warrants an M, rather than an MA15+ classification, because the overall impact of the classifiable elements is considered moderate, rather than strong.

“Though the film contains sexual activity, the impact of the more detailed sex scene was reduced by its comedic treatment”, Classification Review Board Convener, Maureen Shelley, said. “The themes of alcohol dependence and depression were of concern yet the restrained treatment resulted in their impact being no higher than moderate.”

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd, to review the MA15+ classification of Sideways made by the Classification Board on 15 October 2004.

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

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

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalised.

Another addition to the database is the German hardcore title MANNERTRAUME. 

******

The distributor of SIDEWAYS is seeking to lower its MA15+ classification. The following news release was issued on November 10th.

Review announced for the film Sideways

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Sideways, directed by Alexander Payne.

Sideways was classified MA15+ with the consumer advice, “Medium level sex scenes, sexual references, medium level coarse language”, by the Classification Board on 15 October 2004.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Monday 15 October 2004 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC website once the review has been finalised.

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The

Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

******

Roadshow have failed in their appeal to have a lower rating for A VERY LONG ENGAGMENT.

27 October 2004
A Very Long Engagement classified MA15+ upon review

A 3 member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the French film, Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles (A Very Long Engagement), directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and starring Audrey Tautou, is classified MA15+ with the consumer advice,“strong violence”.

MA15+ is a legally restricted classification. Films classified MA15+ are considered unsuitable for persons under 15 years of age. Persons under the age of 15 years must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian in order to receive entry to the film.

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, the film warrants an MA15+ classification because it contains violence of strong impact.

Classification Review Board Convener, Maureen Shelley, said, “Specifically, the film features realistic war scenes, including one where a soldier is covered in the splattered remains of another”.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Roadshow Film Distributors Pty Ltd, to review the MA15+ classification of

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the

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

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalised.

******

On the same day found that advertisements for THE PACIFIER can be screened with any other film.

27 October 2004
Classification Review Board finds The Pacifier can be advertised with all films

A 3 member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film entitled The Pacifier, starring Vin Diesel, can be advertised with films of any classification for public exhibition.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Buena Vista International (Australia) Pty Ltd, to review the M classification conditions imposed upon the advertising for The Pacifier by the Classification Board on 30 September 2004.

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

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

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalised.

******

The full Review Board report detailing the RC rating for MANHUNT has now been released.

******

The Sydney Daily Telegraph have been busy beating up a scare campaign against the game COUNTER-STRIKE.

(ARCHIVED) Wife tells of deadly reality. Daily Telegraph 05.11.04 

(ARCHIVED) Battle of cyberspace. Daily Telegraph 05.11.04 

Bill Muelenberg from the Australian Family Association offers these 'shocking' revelations. He would presumably prefer you were tucked up in bed with your bible.

"There are some places where you can go and play all night," 
"These newer games have interactivity and graphics, so you can really assume a role with them."

For a more balanced view on this story.

Don’t let facts kill a good yarn The Inquirer 05.11.04

The only people making the claim are not the police, not the courts, nor indeed any civil rights groups. The story is the sole invention of some hacks working for the Aussie rag the Daily Telegraph.

***

(ARCHIVED) Spawning a scandal Atomicmpc 05.11.04

******

(ARCHIVED) Sales thrust eludes soft-porn mags. The Australian 11.11.04

Looks at the decline in sales of soft-core Adult magazines. Former ACP publisher Brad Boxall gives some reasons.

"Porn is so big on the internet and people who want hard-core porn are going that way."

"Guys who feel uncomfortable buying a magazine with nude girls in it are much happier buying one with girls in bikinis in it. With Ralph and FHM you can read it on the train and no one's going to get upset. You can leave it on the coffee table at home and your girlfriend's not going to get upset."

"In the mid-'90s you could show girls on the cover who were basically nude, but you might cover up one of their nipples with their hand or a bit of type. Nowadays, you can't show any [naked] breasts at all, any bottoms. You've basically got to have a girl with a bikini on the cover. And we routinely have covers . . . that are considered too rude even with the girls wearing a bikini, so we have to go back and make the bikini broader, wider . . . In the newsagent, you're losing your cover impact."

******

Three more pieces of censorship history to add to the database. All come from 1980.

SINGLES-FLIRT UP YOUR LIFE is another game to add to the growing list of titles that have been Refused Classification in Australia. Since June we have also seen RC ratings for SHELLSHOCK NAM'67, MANHUNT and Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude. That is one banned game per month! An R18+ rating would see all these titles easily passed the OFLC. Which brings us to....

R rating plan for gory video games The Age 06.10.04

The Victorian Attorney-General Rod Hulls is quoted as saying:

"As part of a national classification regime, the Federal Government needs to act to resolve a clear gap in the system whereby computer games, unlike films, are not subject to R18+ or X18+ ratings,"

A new site that has just been added to the links page is AUSTRALIAN ADULT GAMERS.

******

The distributor of COLLATERAL has failed in an attempt to have its rating lowered from MA15+ to M. The following news release was issued by the Review Board on October 6th.

Collateral classified MA15+ upon review

A 3 member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film entitled Collateral, directed by Michael Mann and starring Tom Cruise, is classified MA15+ with the consumer advice, “Strong violence”.

MA15+ is a legally restricted classification. Films classified MA15+ are considered unsuitable for persons under 15 years of age. Persons under the age of 15 years must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian in order to receive entry to the film.

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, the film warrants an MA15+ classification because the film contained a number of scenes of strong violence and the impact of the film was more than moderate.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, United International Pictures Pty, to review the MA15+ classification of

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the

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

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalised.

It looks like the distributor of A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT is also seeking a lower classification. The following news release was issued on October 21st.

Review announced for the film A Very Long Engagement

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the French film, Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles (A Very Long Engagement), directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and starring Audrey Tautou.

Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles was classified MA15+ with the consumer advice, “Medium level violence, Medium level sex scene”, by the Classification Board on 6 October 2004.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 27 October 2004 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC website once the review has been finalised.

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

******

Another censored Adult title to add to the database is the 2004 production, BELLA LOVES JENNA.

The distributor has now censored SITTIN' PRETTY and has been awarded an X18+.

******

Customs have been busy over the past few weeks. Three confiscations to report. At least two for the Synapse disc of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE, and one for the Hong Kong title HORRIBLE HIGH HEELS.

Also added to the database is the Japanese film ORGAN. This was taken back in the days when customs would still send seized items to the OFLC.

******

In the October 9th SMH article 'Porn inquiry may cost police $60m' a spokesman for the OFLC is quoted as stating:

"....law enforcement agencies are entitled to the first 100 classifications in any year at no charge and a 50 per cent discount on all classifications after that. Classification of a revised "interactive or click-on access film" is $600 per item."

On October 14th the OFLC felt it necessary to clarify the issue by releasing this press release.

Role of the Classification Board in processing applications from enforcement authorities

The Classification Board is responsible for the classification of publications, films and computer games under the national classification scheme. The Board also classifies online content on referral from the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The Board is comprised of people who are broadly representative of the Australian community

The Classification Board also receives applications for classification of material from Commonwealth, State and Territory police and other enforcement authorities. Those applications relate to offences, including under State or Territory classification laws and, in some cases, child pornography offences.

“Dealing with applications from police is an important community service provided by the Classification Board” Acting Director, Paul Hunt said.

In classifying material submitted by police, the Classification Board does not know what charges, if any, are being contemplated.

“With the cooperation of those involved, the Board is meeting agreed timeframes.” Mr Hunt said.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification, on behalf of the Classification Board, does not publicly comment on issues related to particular applications for classification.

All questions regarding Operation Auxin should be directed to the relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory enforcement authority.

Also on October 14th came this statement from The Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

PORNOGRAPHY CLASSIFICATION

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has asked for quick action in response to police concerns about the volume of material needing classification as a result of child pornography investigations.

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police has flagged the possibility of legislative and procedural changes to ensure the material collected in the investigations is classified in a timely manner.

"I have asked the Office of Film and Literature Classification to examine whether procedural or administrative changes could expedite the process," Mr Ruddock said.

"I have also asked my Department to follow up, as a matter of urgency, the Commissioner’s comments in relation to possible legislative changes at the federal level.

"If legislative change is required in conjunction with state governments, I will bring this to my state counterparts as a matter of urgency," Mr Ruddock said.

(ARCHIVED) Fear & Loathing in the censorship bunker Crikey.Com 18.10.04

The child porns raid and arrests across the country has caused a flurry of action and anxiety at the Office of Film and Literature Classification, as Hugo Kelly has told Crikey subscribers in recent days.

Who is the head of the Classification office and board? Why, Crikey's old friend and Liberal apparatchik Des Clark. Des's great achievement has been to bolster the top levels of management in the office - while depleting the board of strength and resources.

This brilliant strategy is about to be tested as a significant amount of child pornography lands on the board and office.

Although the Act allows for twenty board members, under Des the board has dwindled to less than ten members, with only four (and a half) engaged in day-to-day classifying. The other four deal with loftier matters, such as "strategic planning" and administrative tasks.