******

After an appeal from Roadshow, the Review Board have dropped the rating of Constantine from MA15+ to M.

23rd February 2005
Constantine classified M upon review

A 3 member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Constantine, directed by Francis Lawrence and starring Keanu Reeves, is classified M with the consumer advice, “Horror and supernatural 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 classification, because while the film contains horror and supernatural themes, they are more stylized than realistic and are in a fantasy context. The themes are of moderate impact rather than strong.

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 Constantine made by the Classification Board on 17 February 2005.

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 Classification (Publications, Films, and Computer Games) (Enforcement) (Amendment) Bill is currently being debated in Victoria. There was some hope that this would have seen X18+ legalised. 

The following article from The Age gives some background to the debate.

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

The first reading of the bill was on 22nd February reopened the debate about X18+.

(ARCHIVED) MPs fess up to blue movies. The Australian 22.02.05

When asked why Victoria would not allow the sale of X18+ rated videos, the Attorney General Rob Hulls is quoted as saying:

"It's the law that exists in every other state and we don't want to break away from the national system,"

The new law will allow police to submit only one copy of a film to the OFLC to make an arrest. Previously multiple copies had to be submitted at a cost of $200 each.

"The police have made it pretty clear to us as a government that the laws currently are outdated," 

"The police want to have extra powers, they want to remove the red tape to better enforce the law and we're giving them those powers."

Asked on 3AW if he had ever seen an X Rated Video Steve Bracks said:

"I don't think I have actually,"

Whist the Victorian Police Minister Tim Holding (who pushing for the new laws) admitted:

"I actually have seen X-rated videos, yes,"

Rob Hulls also admitted the same:

"Well, I'm a lot older than the police minister and I have no doubt that I've watched some X-rated films as well."

Change to film sex rules. The Age 28.03.05

Looks at how the bill will up the Victorian threshold age from 16 to 18. 

Australian Screen Directors Association executive director Richard Harris acknowledged that depictions of teenagers involved in sex could be problematic.

"But it's clearly a crucial part of someone's development, and that stage of life is really fertile ground for drama, because it's a time when people are testing and experimenting," Mr Harris said.

"I don't think this is a proportionate response to the issue."

******

An interesting program on ABC Radio National this evening was Australia Talks Back. Today it looked at the Sex Industry in Australia. 

Australia Talks Back
Monday to Friday at 6.00pm (3.00pm in WA, 5.00pm Qld/NT), repeated at 3.00am

Sex Is A Major Industry
Monday 21 February  2005 

Sex is a major industry. ‘Adult’ shops, as they’re euphemistically called, are popping up all over the suburbs. There’s a plethora of lucrative phone sex services, a huge trade in X-rated videos & DVD’s. And of course omnipresent online porn. Do we have an unhealthy obsession with sex?

Guests on this program:

Fionna Pattern
Sex Industry Lobbyist and spokesperson for the Eros Foundation 

Cathy Aubrey
Researcher from Sydney University 

Brett George
Owner and Manager of the adult shop chain 'Naughty But Nice' 

John Nutting
Relationship Counsellor 

Steve Fielding
Senator-Elect from the Family First Party 

Presenter:
Sandy McCutcheon

Producer:
Antony Funnell

******

Andrew Evans from the Family First Party has been pushing the cause of Young Media Australia in the South Australian Legislative Council. This week he received his reply about them being considered as `persons aggrieved' should they wish to challenge an OFLC rating.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 23 November 2004

FILM CLASSIFICATION

The Hon. A.L. EVANS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industry and Trade, representing the Attorney General, a question about the restrictions on appeals for films awarded unrestricted classifications.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A.L. EVANS: Under the review process for classification decisions made by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, film and publication distributors have access to a system of review and a right to appeal. Almost invariably, distributors apply to have the classification lowered. No such right applies for the public. If they believe that a classification is too lenient and should be raised, their options are very limited. They must prove that they are `persons aggrieved' by the classification decision in order to be heard. If they cannot meet this requirement, their only option is to persuade the state Attorney General to lodge a request for a review with the federal Attorney General.

Changes to the Classification Act have expanded the class of persons who can be considered to be aggrieved, but only in regard to appeals concerning decisions relating to `restricted publications' such as MA, R, X and RC films and computer games. These changes now allow organisations whose objects or purposes include, and whose activities relate to, the contentious aspects of the theme or subject matter to qualify. Further, a person who has engaged in a series of activities relating to or who has researched the contentious aspects can also be considered aggrieved. Organisations or members of the public concerned about material being given a rating of G rather than a PG, or a PG rather than an M, do not benefit from these changes.

In the Office of Film and Literature Classification Annual Report 2003-04, it was noted that each year there has been some dissatisfaction with the classification given to some family films. Young Media Australia is an organisation that provides detailed reviews and advice to the public about the media and the developmental needs of children. Its work is highly valued by both professionals and parents who are concerned about protecting children from the material in the media that is not appropriate or can be harmful to their developmental needs. Young Media Australia would have challenged the classification given to films such as Scooby Doo, but the combined requirements of a time limit of 30 days, the cost and having to prove that they were within the definition of persons aggrieved by the decision prevented such action. My questions to the Attorney-General are as follows:

1. Why was it seen to be more important that the definitions of who can be aggrieved were relaxed in relation to legally restricted films, but not for films for wide consumption by hundreds of thousands of children?

2. Will the Attorney-General pursue a review of this anomaly that prevents the public and interested organisations, other than distributors, appealing films and other material in the unrestricted categories in the same way as can now be done in regard to material given a restricted classification?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Industry and Trade): I thank the honourable member for his question and I will refer it to the Attorney-General and bring back a reply.

******

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 8 December 2004

YOUNG MEDIA AUSTRALIA

The Hon. A.L. EVANS: Young Media Australia's mission is to promote a quality media environment for Australian children and to raise community awareness of children's needs in relation to the media. Children's normal developmental stages have quite specific and important implications for decision-making and information about children's media exposure. Young Media Australia undertakes to conduct, collect and review research and information relating to children and the media to maintain a significant level of expertise in child development and the impacts of media.

Another vital role of Young Media is in the provision of information to parents and caregivers via the Young Media Australia web site. Advice provided relates to a range of media issues including the impact of print, electronic and screen based media on children and young people. It undertakes to have a comprehensive range of movie reviews available and has recently begun to have some of these reviews published in a local weekend newspaper. Trained professionals provide advice and information via a 24 hour a day seven days a week national free call helpline on a range of topics. These professionals have reported consistently that they receive strong positive feedback from callers about the work of Young Media. Young Media Australia also advocates for the needs and interests of children in relation to the media. Young Media Australia represents community concerns about the impact of print, electronic and screen based media on children and young adults to legislators, regulators and the media.

Much of what is marketed through the media is not in the best interests of children. Media marketing is increasingly using sophisticated techniques which exploit children's natural developmental vulnerabilities and which have negative impacts on children's development. Messages encouraging early sexualisation or the acceptance of violence are used to raise demand from young children for various products. Parents are increasingly confused by the marketing of television and movies that are directed at children but also at parents. Movie distributors sometimes seek to maximise their box office takings without regard to whether the movie is beneficial or problematic for children at various developmental stages.

Many M-rated films have been marketed to the young via toys and fun activity books designed for four and five year olds. Some parents may be swept along by marketing pressure to conclude that the association of toys with the movie means that the movie is appropriate for these young children. Our classification system is not properly reflecting the research about media impacts, nor is it as useful as it could be in terms of being structured around children's major stages of development and parents' desire to make good parenting decisions. Young Media Australia has been at the forefront of education about how parents can best use the classification system. It is the only group trying to support parents to moderate their children's media experiences so that children's development is supported.

Who is supporting Young Media Australia? The South Australian government has been providing funding assistance for a number of years. However, it is a national organisation meeting the needs of concerned and responsible parents across Australia. It is performing a vital role in meeting the needs of families and children. These needs are not being adequately addressed by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the national classification system. I understand that Young Media Australia is still waiting to hear whether commonwealth funding has been approved through the Stronger Families: Invest to Grow grants. Federal funding should constitute a substantial part of Young Media Australia's funding base, and do so on an ongoing basis.

Time expired.

******

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 15 February 2005

REPLIES TO QUESTION

FILM CLASSIFICATION

In reply to Hon. A.L. EVANS (23 November 2004).

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Attorney-General has provided the following information:

1. Before 2001, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 provided, by s. 42, for four categories of persons to seek a review of a classification decision. They were the applicant for classification, the publisher of the item, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and a person aggrieved'. The latter term was not further defined in the Act.

In 1999, the controversial film Lolita was released in Australia with an R classification. The film dealt with a sexual relationship between an under-age girl and her step-father. Some people wanted it banned. Three organisations concerned with the prevention of child abuse applied to the Review Board for a review of the R classification. They claimed to be persons aggrieved' within the meaning of s. 42. The Review Board refused these applications. It held, in two cases, the these were not persons aggrieved'. The other application was refused because the applicant did not pay the fee.

The commonwealth government then introduced a bill, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, to amend the Act to add to s. 42 new sub-sections (3) to (5). Those sub-sections do not limit sub-section (1). They add to it by providing an aid to proof of who is a person aggrieved' in the case of a decision to classify an item in a way that legally restricts its availability to the public. A decision to classify a film MA, R, X or RC is a restricted decision. In that case, because of sub-sections (3) to (5), certain organisations can qualify as persons aggrieved. These are organisations whose objects or purposes include, and whose activities relate to, the contentious aspects of that theme or subject matter. Also, researchers or those who conduct activities relating to the contentious aspects of the film can qualify as aggrieved. (There is an exception in sub-section (4) where the research was only undertaken, or the relevant objects of the organisation began, only after the classification decision.)

The Attorney-General understands that the purpose of the amendment was to expand the range of persons and organisations covered by the term a person aggrieved'. In cases where there is some public concern about a decision, the amended provision makes it easier for some organisations to seek a review. The expanded right of review relates only to classification decisions that fall within restricted categories.

2. As the Attorney-General understands the Commonwealth Act, it does not now prevent any person claiming to be aggrieved from seeking a review of an unrestricted decision. The Member referred to Young Media Australia, an organisation that takes an interest in classification standards as they affect children. Nothing prevents such an organisation from claiming to be aggrieved by an unrestricted classification decision, for example, the decision to classify the film Scooby Doo G, as the Honourable Member mentioned. The question would be whether that organisation could satisfy the Review Board that it was a person aggrieved', without the help of s. 42(3). That expression is not defined in the Act but has been judicially considered in other statutory contexts. It is also possible to challenge a ruling of the Review Board on this point by an application for judicial review.

In that sense, the present law does not prevent appeals by aggrieved persons about advisory classifications, as the question might suggest. It is true, however, that under the present law these persons do not have the benefit of s. 42(3) and (4) where the decision is not restricted'.

As for a review, members would realise that the Attorney-General cannot, himself, review a provision of the Commonwealth Act. Any amendment or review of the Commonwealth Act is a matter for the Commonwealth Parliament. Nothing prevents the Honourable Member, or anyone else, however, from lobbying the Commonwealth Attorney-General for such a review. Accordingly, the Attorney-General will write to other censorship Ministers proposing that this matter be discussed at their meeting, held in conjunction with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. An item can be added to that agenda with the agreement of other participating Ministers.

attorney-general's portfolio: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Date: 14 February, 2005
Department: attorney-general's portfolio
Database: Estimates Comm.
Committee name: LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Program: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Proof: Yes

Office of Film and Literature Classification
Mr Des Clark, Director
Mr Paul Hunt, Deputy Director
Mr John Robinson, Business Manager

CHAIR —Welcome Mr Clark, Mr Hunt and Mr Robinson. I understand we will start with questions from Senator Harradine.

Senator HARRADINE —I am wondering about the answers that have been given to me over a period of time in respect of the contents of X material. In the Daily Telegraph of 18 January this year the Classification Review Board rated a film featuring real sex scenes as R rather than X. This overturned the decision of the OFLC. Given statements made by the OFLC to the committee over the years, what grounds were used to rate that film X when clearly it came within the guidelines of R?

Mr Clark —In answer to your question, the board, in making an X decision, was of the view that the amount of actual sex in the film did not permit it into the R classification but that, because there was no violence or other content that would cause it not to fit into the X classification, the board placed in that classification category. The review board made a different decision in interpreting the same guidelines, but I am unable to tell you precisely their thinking in relation to that. As you know, the Classification Review Board makes a new decision and it is entirely their decision to make.

Senator HARRADINE —I thought you may be able to provide the information to the committee as to why the review board made such a decision in contradistinction to yours.

Mr Clark —I am unable to comment on review board decisions. As I understand it, the reasons for the decision by the review board are not yet complete but when they are complete they can be made available to you.

Senator HARRADINE —However, your guidelines are fixed, are they not? They have not changed.

Mr Clark —No, the guidelines have not changed and the review board use the same guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —In a previous estimates committee I questioned the OFLC on earlier film classification decisions and was assured that, for R rated films:

Sexual activity may be realistically simulated; the general rule is “simulation, yes—the real thing, no.”

When making classification decisions about nudity in a sexual context, which includes genital to genital contact, the Classification Board applies and has always applied the general rule.

That was a statement made by your officers. You are now telling me that you cannot comment on the review board's decision.

Mr Clark —As chairman of the classification board it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on a decision made by the Classification Review Board, which is an independent statutory board. I can comment on the application of the guidelines by the classification board, of which I am a member, and my answer to you at that time still stands true in relation to the guidelines for sexual activity at the R classification and the application of a general rule.

Senator HARRADINE —So, in fact, it is just a technical question as to whether there is real sex involved or not.

Mr Clark —It is not a technical question. The board, in a number of decisions over 10 years, has applied the general rule and permitted small amounts of actual sex depending on the context and the merit of the film, but the general rule is applied.

Senator HARRADINE —You say `the context' of the film.

Mr Clark —Yes.

Senator HARRADINE —So you take that into consideration. Do you take the pornographic intent into consideration? I can envisage films that may have no pornographic content or intent at all but which would have nudity, for example. According to what you have just said, you have indicated that you do have regard to the nature of the content.

Mr Clark —The context of the story of the film and the way that is told is different to the intent. If the intent is purely pornographic I am sure that the board will apply the guidelines very rigidly. But if the film has merit—and it is a judgment that the board makes under section 11 of the act—it may be permissible in applying the general rule. But, in applying the general rule, the board would certainly not be permitting films which have a sexually explicit intent which would sit most appropriately in the X classification.

Senator HARRADINE —What is a sexually explicit intent?

Mr Clark —That is the purpose of the film. That is all it is about and that is what X rated films are.

Senator HARRADINE —I just cannot cope with those words together—sexually explicit intent. You are talking about pornographic intent, presumably, are you?

Mr Clark —The guidelines do not actually use the word `pornographic' and nor does the code. Sexually explicit intent, if you like, of making a film like that would place it into X. It would not fit into the R classification. An R classification has permitted, under the general rule, from time to time a small amount of actual sexual activity, but it is in the context of a film which is mostly not about that; it is about narrating a story.

Senator HARRADINE —So you could have a pornographic theme in part of the film which relates to the explicit area and that would normally be classified as X?

Mr Clark —Under the guidelines, films that are classified X contain sexually explicit material, and that is mostly what they contain.

Senator HARRADINE —Why don't you assess the films on their pornographic intent and content or otherwise?

Mr Clark —We assess X-rated films on their explicit sexual content. The word `pornographic' is not in any of the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —That is what you did on this particular occasion. You classified this particular film, 9 Songs, as X.

Mr Clark —We did because of the amount of sexual activity in the film. The board recognised that it had a more serious intent than other X-rated films because it had musical performances, but the board's view was that the film sat within the X classification.

Senator HARRADINE —Again, you are talking about the question of explicit intent. Does that mean pornographic intent?

Mr Clark —I do not believe that the film had pornographic intent, because we do not seek to measure that. We believe that the amount of actual sex in 9 Songs exceeded the guideline for R, but it does not necessarily have to be RC because it could be accommodated at the X classification.

Senator HARRADINE —Would you agree that the definition of porn is material, the content and intent of which is designed to arouse the sexual desires of its target audience?

Mr Clark —No I do not. Pornographic can mean many things. It depends on how the word is applied, if I go to the dictionary for its meaning. I think that is the reason why the `pornographic' does not appear in the code or in the guidelines.

Senator HARRADINE —So you would deny that that definition was appropriate?

Mr Clark —It is one of many. It does accommodate that, but there are many interpretations of the meaning of `pornographic'.

Senator HARRADINE —Like what? Could you explain?

Mr Clark —I am trying to think of a good example. I think sometimes matters of crime could be applied as being pornographic as well in their intent. I would really need to get the dictionary, but that is my last reading of the meaning of the word.

Senator HARRADINE —Can the public expect that material which contains small amounts of pornographic and explicit sex will be classified as X—is that right?

Mr Clark —No. It is a possibility, but that is not the case because many of these films that have been given an R classification which do contain some explicit sex also contain violence or other activities which would prohibit them from being in the X classification.

Senator HARRADINE —I understand that. That is a given. We have been through this time and time again.

Mr Clark —Yes we have, Senator.

Senator HARRADINE —I do not have to be told that.

Mr Clark —But that still applies.

Senator HARRADINE —Yes, but I am talking about how explicit material—and I specifically use your words and added my word to make it explicit and pornographic material—would thereby be classified by your board as X.

Mr Clark —Provided it meets the guidelines for X, yes, it could be.

Senator HARRADINE —I am trying to get to what the new guidelines are for X.

Mr Clark —The note to the guidelines for X says:

This classification category applies only to films. This classification is a special and legally restricted category which contains only sexually explicit material. That is material which contains real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity between consenting adults.

Senator HARRADINE —Thank you.

Senator GREIG —What is the OFLC doing with the widespread, illegal sale of unclassified adult films, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria? I am advised that an OFLC community liaison officer, Mr Ron Robertson, has confirmed that X-rated films are being sold through service stations, convenience stores, delicatessens and newsagents. A press release in December of last year from Victorian opposition small business spokesperson, Mr Bruce Atkinson MLC, said, `Until march of this year'—that is, last year: 2004—`unclassified adult films were sold in a Coles Express outlet in Fitzroy where I bought my petrol'. Does the OFLC believe it is supplying both the New South Wales and the Victorian state governments with enough information about the extensive black market operations that exist there in order for those state jurisdictions to make effective laws to control it?

Mr Clark —The community liaison officers liaise with nominated officers in each state and territory. They report on their activities and they plan their activities in conjunction with the appropriate officials in each state and territory. So there is a close working relationship there. They do report to them three times a year in relation to their activities. So that is provided on an ongoing and regular basis.

Senator GREIG —Are you satisfied, though, that that system is working? As I understand it, state governments are not enforcing the federal classification act, even though they have complementary enforcement legislation. It is estimated that some seven million adult films are sold illegally in Australia each year, yet I am advised also that the OFLC in its annual report classified only 640 X-rated films. Can you attempt to convince me that the system is effective? It seems to me that there is a disconnect here with the state application of federal law. The result is that we are seeing a significant illegal market of unclassified materials through family outlets.

Mr Clark —What you say has a lot of validity. We classify the material that is submitted and we report. Ultimately, it is a decision for the states and territories how they will enforce the law. We provide that information and we hope for improvement in enforcement activity.

Senator GREIG —Hope for improvement? Is that—

Mr Clark —We are working to get better coordination with the state authorities. That is an activity that is currently under way so the designation nominee will have a better ability to move through those jurisdictions.

Senator GREIG —Does the Commonwealth have any coercive powers in that regard?

Mr Clark —The Commonwealth is primarily a statutory decision maker. The CLS is a joint funded operation of the OFLC and the states and territories. But ultimately enforcement is a matter for the states and territories.

Senator GREIG —Thank you.

CHAIR —As there are no further questions, I would like to thank you Mr Clark, Mr Hunt and Mr Robinson.

[3.50 p.m.]

******

The forthcoming documentary INSIDE DEEP THROAT could be the next title to feature real sex in the R18+ rating. The film contains footage from the original DEEP THROAT. This currently holds an X18+ rating in Australia.

Porn doco breathes life into sex debate. SMH 17.02.05

Dendy Films' general manager, Richard Payten, said controversy over the classification in Australia was "highly probable but we hope that [the film] contributes in a positive way to the censorship debate". The company plans to release the documentary - and Deep Throat, if a print is available - in June or July.

******

With Christian groups  increasingly responsible for stopping development applications  from adult shop, brothel and  other adult goods and services operators, the Eros Association has launched a new web site to help traders defend the morality and legitimacy of their operations. www.deception.com.au lists all church clergy in Australia who have been dealt with in the courts for child sexual assaults and abuse since 1990. It then goes on to outline the mischievous campaign of deception that religious groups in Australia are perpetrating on the adult industry through local councils, state governments  and even federal government. Basically, these groups accuse the sex industry of causing sex crimes wherever they set up and cause government to further restrict or even ban the industry when ,in fact, it is the churches who breed the perpetrators of the sex crimes. The site lays bear the names and circumstances of hundreds of church clergy but fails to find even one adult industry operator who has ever been charged with a child sex assault. 

******

Two more adult titles to add to the database. Despite being awarded an X18+ in 1999, ERUPTION has just been re-rated RC.

Gallery Entertainment had the Leisure Time DVD #24951 Refused Classification in January.

******

The following statement was made by Jack Snelling (ALP) in the South Australian House of Assembly on February 17th. The former Deputy Head of the Classification Board he refers to is David Haines. Mr Snelling claims:

"It is remarkable that, upon retirement, someone who has held a position as an independent umpire takes up a position as such a lobbyist.

There is nothing at all remarkable about this. How many government ministers have left their positions to take up such roles?

Mr SNELLING (Playford): Late last year, along with the member for Florey and the federal member for Makin, Trish Draper, I attended the Christmas break-up of the Valley View Neighbourhood Watch. None of us had been invited to speak and, given the nature of the event, I thought that fair enough. However, that did not stop Ms Draper, who promptly invited herself to speak on the then imminent release of the French art-house film, Anatomy of Hell, of which she was rather critical. I am not of the opinion that adults should be able to watch whatever they want, and I think that the government has a role in censoring films that offend public decency. However, what flowed from Ms Draper was an extraordinary attack on the state government and the Attorney-General, in particular, for not using his powers to ban the film in South Australia.

I think that there are good reasons for the state's not striking out and taking a `going it alone' approach to censorship, the main reason being that, because of DVDs and videos, these films can be moved across state borders very easily. One has only to look at the number of X-rated or non-violent erotica films that constantly come across into our state from Canberra. What I find remarkable is that, while criticising the state government, Ms Draper, who is a member of the federal government (which has the prime responsibility for classification and censorship), seems to have done nothing to approach the federal government on these issues. I wonder what she has done to lobby the federal Attorney-General about the personnel who comprise the federal Classification Board probably not much.

Recently, I was amazed to learn that a former deputy head of the Classification Board has taken up a position as a lobbyist for the Eros Foundation, which is one of the main promoters of pornography. It is remarkable that, upon retirement, someone who has held a position as an independent umpire takes up a position as such a lobbyist. However, my main grievance is Ms Draper's getting up at community functions, at which she was not invited to speak, and making political attacks on the state government on matters for which the federal government has prime responsibility.

******

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

15 November 2004
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW

MEMBERS: 
Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor)
The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor)
Dr Robin Harvey

APPLICANT: 20th Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd (20th Century Fox)

Represented by: Mr John Dickie, John Dickie Consultants and

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Sideways (the film) MA15+ with the consumer advice ‘Medium level sex scenes, sexual references, medium level coarse language’.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Decision

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) in the majority classified the film M with the consumer advice ‘Frequent coarse language, sex scenes, sexual references, alcohol and depression themes’.

2. Legislative provisions

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) of the Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National

Three essential principles underlie the use of the 2003 Guidelines for the of the Act:

The importance of context

Assessing impact

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

3. Procedure

Having earlier received a valid written application for review, three members of the Sideways at the Board’s meeting on 15 November 2004.

The Review Board then received an oral submission from Mr John Dickie

Mr Chris Smith also attended on behalf of the Applicant during Mr Dickie’s oral submission.

The Board then met in camera to consider the matter.

4. Evidence and other material taken into account

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

(i) 20th Century Fox’s application for review;

(ii) 20th Century Fox’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.

5 Synopsis

Husband-to-be Jack and his best man Miles set out on a road trip encompassing a wine-tasting tour to celebrate Jack’s last days as a single man. The pair is determined to enjoy each other’s company and the local wines however Jack has additional ambitions to participate in sexual activity leading to a number of comic and dramatic

6 Findings on material questions of fact

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes important to

(a) Themes – The theme of irresponsible alcohol consumption combined with depressive illness had a moderate impact in the film given the context of the two men

At 92 minutes his compulsive consumption of alcohol combined with his depression

(b) Sex – There are two sex scenes in the film, one discreetly implied and one implied. At 67 minutes a discreetly implied sex scene is shown. The scene is brief with little detail. The bare buttocks of Jack are shown briefly.

At 107 minutes is a 60 second implied sex scene. The scene’s comedic treatment mitigates the impact of the scene. Miles has broken into a house to recover Jack’s wallet that he left after having sex (not shown) with a waitress. The buxom waitress and her husband are having implied sex. The waitress says “I’ve been a bad girl, I pulled him and I fucked him”. The focus of the scene is on Miles and whether he will get caught. The sexual activity is taking place in the background. The film invites the audience to laugh both at the couple – who are both overweight people – and Miles through lighting, the accompanying dialogue and the anguished look on Miles’ face. The light tone and lack of detail mitigate the impact of the scene.

There are also several verbal sexual references in the film.

(c) Language – The film contains frequent coarse language mainly used conversationally in a mild tone of voice, as in “Teaching English to fucking eighth graders” or “What the fuck were you doing?”. Aggressive coarse language is used infrequently.

(d) Violence – There is one scene of violence at approximately 94 minutes when Stephanie (with whom Jack has been having a sexual relationship) implicitly hits Jack in the face with a bike helmet. Her arm with the helmet in her hand is shown heading towards Jack. He is then off camera and she is shown hitting him on the ground. Later

(e) Nudity – There is one scene of full nudity in the film and two of partial nudity. When Jack is discovered by the husband he returns to the motel naked whilst covering his penis completely with his hands. The sex scene of the waitress and her husband shows them fully naked but genitalia cannot be seen. As Miles escapes with Jack’s wallet he is pursued by the waitress’s husband. The husband is shown running nude after him. Again the comedic treatment of the scene mitigates its impact. The husband is a comic figure and the scene of him running naked makes him appear only more comic. Again the focus in this scene is on Miles making his escape. The overall tone and treatment ensures that the impact of the scene is moderate, there is little menace

(f) Drug use – At 81 minutes a character is depicted implicitly smoking a joint. The excessive consumption of alcohol by Miles is a theme throughout the film. However, his behaviour is not condoned or glamorised. He is shown to bear the consequences of his actions and he does not experience “success” with the woman he is interested in until his drinking is under control.

7 Reasons for the decision

The Review Board based its decision to classify the film Sideways ‘M’ with the consumer advice ‘Frequent coarse language, sex scenes, sexual references, alcohol and depression themes’ on the content of the film as set out in 5 and 6 above.

The film contains a number of classifiable elements but their impact is no more than moderate. The Review Board found that the treatment of the moderate themes was

The Review Board in the majority concluded that whilst the impact of the classifiable elements was only moderate the subject matter was such that would not be

By providing extensive and detailed consumer advice the Review Board was signalling to parents that while the film had only a moderate classification it was not a film recommended for minors. Generally, if a film warrants extensive consumer advice, the Review Board would consider that a higher classification may be appropriate. However, the Review Board found in the majority that a more restrictive classification was not warranted given the moderate impact – both individually and cumulatively – of the classifiable elements.

It was the view of the minority that the cumulative impact of the classifiable elements was such that the film warranted the more restrictive classification of ‘MA15+’.

This is a slow paced film that is likely to only appeal to adults, most likely to the ageing baby boomers similar to those that it depicts. It does contain several classifiable elements of moderate impact, however, the Review Board concluded in

8 Summary

While the classifiable elements and the impact in the overall context of the film Sideways did not justify a ‘MA15+’ classification, they did result in the film being not recommended for persons under 15 years of age and warranted specific consumer advice relating to the frequent use of coarse language, sex scenes, sexual references, and the themes of excessive alcohol consumption and depression.

******

If you are like me and love of all those early 80's tapes then you should take a look at pre-cert.co.uk. The guys behind the site are also the authors of Shock! Horror!, an amazing collection of outrageous artwork from the early days of video. 

West Australia goes to the polls on February 26th, with the Labor Government hoping to win a second term. WA is one of the more conservative states in the country. It was a complaint from the WA Labor Government that saw MANHUNT put before the review board and banned. This came about after the WA Liberal Opposition pushed for the review. 

The WA Liberal-National Coalition has just announced their censorship policy. They intend to reintroduce "Local Control" over censorship matters. The policy states:

"In situations where the community has identified questionable material, the Coalition will empower the Minister with responsibility for Censorship to convene a Censorship Advisory Board comprised of community leaders and specialists to review the classification of the material and make recommendations to the Minister."

When they say "community" they obviously mean religious groups such as the AFA who will be given free rein to complain about anything they wish.

Other policies will have more of an impact for National censorship policy. Their policy states:

"Under this system, the highest possible classification that a game can receive, MA15+, will remain."

This means that there is no way that we are going to see an R18+ rating for games. If WA does not sign-up, then it's hard to see the other States introducing a higher rating. They also intend to push at a National level for:

 "........ a stricter classification regime so that games that contain gratuitous violence or sexual references, such as Manhunt, are refused classification and therefore not available for sale."

Also at a National level they want to remove “discreet” drug use and nudity that is “justified by context” from G rated films.

Their conclusion says it all really.

"The Coalition strongly believes that censorship has an important role to play in maintaining standards within the community to protect our children and strengthen families."

If the WA Liberal-National Coalition win power on February 26th and get to implement this policy then we are going to see an increase in censorship not only in the West but possibly also at a National level. 

The full policy is a follows.

25.01.05
PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN CLASSIFICATION & CENSORSHIP

Children in our society are increasingly exposed to violence and inappropriate material through television, films, computer games and the Internet. Exposure to this material can have an adverse effect on social and emotional development and lead to anti-social and criminal behaviour.

To avoid these negative outcomes it is important that certain standards are maintained so that children interact with or view material that is appropriate to their age.

The Liberal National Coalition has consistently advocated that protection of our children and young people must be a priority of any government.

Censorship is one area in which the protection of children is of paramount concern and accurate classification will assist parents and young people to make appropriate choices.

In 2003, the Labor Government handed control of Western Australian censorship laws to the Federal Government through the Censorship Amendment Act. This Act removed Western Australia’s power to veto the Federal classification of publications, films and computer games and placed them in the hands of the Eastern States based Office of Film and Literature Classification.

While the Coalition recognises the benefits of national cooperation in the regulation of materials such as films and computer games, there is a need for Western Australia to restore its right of veto over the classification of materials that fall through the national safety net.

When it comes to protecting our children, Western Australians must reserve the right to make the final decision on the materials to which our children and young people are exposed. This is a core responsibility that should not be ignored.

The need for a local safety net is evident by the availability of excessively graphic and violent computer games such as ‘Manhunt’, which inculcate children and young people with the glamour of conflict. Despite the fact that this game encouraged players to kill in the most gruesome way, including suffocation with plastic bags and beheadings, it was available for sale and hire to children of just 15 years of age. Only after intervention by the Opposition on behalf of the community was the game taken off the shelves.

By linking rewards to conflict, games such as Manhunt glamorise aggression to a dangerous extent and encourage children to solve problems using violence. Given that children interact regularly, it is highly likely that other children, including siblings and friends younger than 15 years, would also be exposed to the graphic images depicted in these games.

A Liberal National Coalition Government will legislate to restore the State’s ability to reclassify material that falls through the national safety net and is considered inappropriate by the community.

In situations where the community has identified questionable material, the Coalition will empower the Minister with responsibility for Censorship to convene a Censorship Advisory Board comprised of community leaders and specialists to review the classification of the material and make recommendations to the Minister.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification is set to introduce standardised ratings for both film and computer games in 2005. The current rating system for computer games is to be retained.

Under this system, the highest possible classification that a game can receive, MA15+, will remain.

Allowing children as young as 15 years to hire or purchase computer games with excessive violence and explicit sexual references is unacceptable, especially given the propensity for this material to then be accessed by younger children.

It is a frightening trend that at the same time technological advances are making computer