These consumer warnings are now getting very specific. The Religious Right have already succeeded in having SUPERNATURAL THEMES attached to the HARRY POTTER films. Strangely, THE PASSION OF CHRIST didn't have a similar warning.

Can a consumer warning of BLASPHEMY be far away?

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
22 June 2005 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Palindromes classified R18+ upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Palindromes, directed by Todd Solondz, is classified R 18+ with the consumer advice, “Abortion and paedophile themes.” 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Palindromes warrants an R 18+ classification because the sex scenes are high in impact, not because of their filmic treatment, but because they relate to under age and paedophile sex. 

“The 13 year-old character, Aviva, is depicted having sex with teenage boys and an adult male”, Classification Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley said. “These scenes are seen to normalize under-age sex, including that of adults with minors, contrary to community concerns about these matters.” 

R 18+ is a restricted classification. Persons aged under 18 years cannot be admitted to films classified R 18+.

 The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Madman Entertainment Pty Ltd, to review the R 18+ classification of Palindromes made by the Classification Board on 6 June 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 finalized.

******

If you would like to read more about how the consumer warnings were formulated, then head on over to the OFLC site for the just released report.

Review of Consumer Advice for Films and Computer Games-June 2005

This report presents the findings of the OFLC’s Review of Consumer Advice. The aim of the Review was to develop a system of consumer advice that would meaningfully communicate the content of films and computer games, so that consumers could make informed entertainment viewing choices. The review is the first of its kind conducted in Australia. It is unique in that both the practitioners (those who provide consumer advice) and consumers (those who use consumer advice) provided input. As an outcome of the review, the Boards formally agreed to principles for providing consumer advice and a framework of specific consumer advice.

******

Channel Ten must be rubbing their hands in glee after the wowsers finally took the BIG BROTHER bait. The controversy will no doubt do wonders for the sagging ratings.

Senator The Hon Helen Coonan
Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts

Complaints about Big Brother 

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, today said she would be writing to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to clarify issues relating to complaints about the Big Brother program. 

“I am aware that there have been complaints in relation to aspects of the reality television program ‘Big Brother’. The Government takes very seriously the issue of protection of children from exposure to program material that may be unsuitable,” Senator Coonan said. 

“I will be asking the Australian Broadcasting Authority (soon to be known as the Australian Communications and Media Authority or ACMA) to look at whether there may have been a breach of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice relating to certain footage shown on the Big Brother program. 

“I will also ask the ABA to look at whether the Code continues to provide sufficient safeguards in light of the increasing amount of reality television programming and whether measures to ensure effective compliance with the Code are appropriate.” 

Both the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and Codes of Practice for the national broadcasters include a complaints mechanism to address concerns about inappropriate material on television.

Complaints can be made to the broadcaster showing the particular program. If the response received from the broadcaster does not meet the concerns of the complainant or there isn’t a response within 60 days, the complainant can refer the matter to the ABA.

“Meanwhile, I have been advised that Network Ten has taken a number of steps to ensure the Big Brother program complies with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, particularly in relation to the classification requirements set out in the Code.

“Network Ten has advised they have appointed an experienced program classifier dedicated solely to the classification of Big Brother. The classifier checks each scene before an episode is broadcast in the relevant timeslot to ensure the material is within the requirements of the Code. 

“I note that two of the Big Brother programs have been classified as MA15+. In accordance with the Code, these programs are not screened until after 9pm and display consumer advice alerting viewers to the content of the program. 

“However, I will continue to monitor the situation and take further action if necessary once I have received advice from the regulator.”

***

Big Brother or big brothel? The Age 22.06.05

...... morals crusader Trish Draper says it's an outrage.

The political hoopla over Big Brother began during yesterday's meeting of Coalition MPs when Ms Draper complained about the "outrageous and disgusting" depictions of young people.

Not a stranger to controversy (Ms Draper was last year the star of her own saucy scandal when she was forced to repay the travel costs of taking her lover on a taxpayer-funded study tour), she said she had been inundated with complaints from residents in her electorate.

Ten issues apology, of sorts. The Age 23.06.05

Margaret Fearn from Network Ten.

"Network Ten apologises for any offence the late-night program, Big Brother Uncut, may have caused regarding the attitude of some male Big Brother housemates towards women,"

"Ten has taken extreme care with Big Brother Uncut to ensure it complies with the code." But the network accepted that some people had disagreed with the incident where the male housemate exposed his penis.

"Both housemates have since publicly asserted that no offence was intended nor taken."

***

For a short time you can listen online to the following 50-minute program.

ABC Radio National
Australia Talks Back
Reality TV 
Thursday 23 June 2005 

How much reality TV can we handle? The popular television program, Big Brother, is under fire for showing too much sex and nudity and will be the subject of a federal government probe. So what are the limits to reality TV? Should there be new rules to regulate reality TV shows? 

Guests on this program: 

Dr. Karen Brooks Senior Lecturer in Popular Culture, University of Sunshine Coast. Columnist for the Courier Mail 

Bill Muehlenberg National Vice President of 'The Australian Family Association' and Secretary of 'The Family Council of Victoria' 

Ian Buchanan Professor of Communictions and Cultural Studies, Charles Darwin University 

Presenter: Sandy McCutcheon 

Producer: Keng Lim

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard (Proof) 
23.06.05
"BIG BROTHER" TELEVISION PROGRAM
Page: 40

Reverend the Hon. (Fred) Frederick John NILE, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Temporary Chair of Committees 
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

The Hon. John HATZISTERGOS, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Minister for Justice
Minister for Fair Trading
Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce
Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship 
Member of Australian Labor Party

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Community Services, a question without notice. Further to my question on notice of 8 June concerning the "Big Brother" television program, is it a fact that the head of Channel 10 corporate relations, Margaret Fearn, admits that the channel made an error over explicit scenes such as a "Big Brother" contestant rubbing his penis in the hair behind an unwilling, unknowing female contestant? Is it a fact that the President of Young Media Australia, Jane Roberts, claims that the penis incident broke the television industry code of conduct? As more than 33,720 children under 12 years of age and 65,070 children aged 13 to 17 years watched this obscene exposure incident on Channel 10, and as Channel 10 is based in Sydney, what action has the department taken to protect the children of New South Wales from moral danger? 

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This is more a question for the Federal Government, which controls these matters. In any event, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Community Services. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The question relates to the department protecting children in New South Wales. 

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I do not quite know how the Minister is expected to go into every living room. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It was shown by Channel 10. 

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The channels are licensed by the Federal Government. In any event, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Community Services. I am sure she will provide the appropriate answer. 

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask a supplementary question. The point of the question was whether officers of the department have had discussions with Channel 10? The department has responsibility for the children of New South Wales. 

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I very much doubt it. But I will include that as part of the question I will refer to the Minister for Community Services.

Last month, NSW’s priestly politician hosted a blue movie luncheon in the parliamentary theatrette.

In the mid 1980’s, Fred Nile ran a similar campaign in an effort to get then Premier, Neville Wran, to ban the new X classification for films that the Commonwealth had just introduced. He showed R rated violent material interspersed with Refused Classification and X rated material – and pretended that it was all X. Wran fell for the con and banned X.

So knowing how Fred operates and given the fact that he had invited Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby, I thought I better go.

I wrote to his office indicating that I would be there. I wasn’t welcome he said. The invitation did state that all were welcome but that obviously didn’t include anyone from the industry that the Bill was about.

Showing X-rated films in NSW in a public place is illegal so how was he going to avoid two years in jail by screening ‘hard core obscene pornography’. ‘Oh its only R rated’, they said after I had complained to the Attorney General’s office, the OFLC and the Usher of the Black Rod. Then the penny dropped. What Fred was actually doing was selecting sexually violent scenes from recent controversial R rated films and calling that ‘hard core pornography’.

The film they planned to show was Anatomy of Hell - a shocking, sexually violent film where sharp garden implements are used in sex. It would never get an X classification. Fred’s deceptive and very misleading message to Parliamentarians was, “ if this stuff is allowed in R rated films, just imagine what is allowed in X”!

Much to my delight, Peter Breen and I were the only people who ended up attending!

The NSW government said they wouldn’t support the Bill because it would be out of line with the other states and unless they all held hands together to get a better regulated system in place they would be too scared of what Archbishop Pell and the Australian Family Association might say. The Opposition’s speaker, David Clarke, seemed strangely more interested in religious freedom of speech than the Bill at hand.

Dr Michael Flood from the Australia Institute was widely quoted by Reverend Moyes and the other ‘unhappy- clappys’ as someone who supported their view on keeping X illegal in NSW. This was duplicitous in the extreme. Flood actually supported Peter Breen’s Bill. In fact in a letter to Nile and Moyes, Dr Michael Flood stated:

a) I would support the introduction of this Bill

b) Our report (The Australia Institute) acknowledges that the existing classification system is not perfect. But improving the kinds of pornographic materials available to adults will not be helped by abandoning this system, and indeed would be hindered. We should not be adopting measures to attempt to stop adults’ access to pornography per se, but measures to regulate this access and to encourage the development of better pornography. Legalising and regulating the distribution of (classified) pornographic materials is one way in which to improve its content and thus minimise potentially negative social impacts.

Only seven MPs spoke on the Bill - three in favour and four against. Former One Nation member, David Oldfield, did not speak and voted with the government and the other supporters of an illegal industry. Lee Rhiannon from the Greens once again showed why that party has the best policies on regulating the adult industry. “The Greens congratulate Mr Peter Breen”, she said, “on the work he has done in introducing this important bill. It will legalise the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ videos. Listening to the debate today and on previous occasions, one would have to say that Mr Breen has certainly set the religious right hares running with this bill. Again, I am left wondering why the religious right revel in talking about and watching pornography. It is one of the curious things about life.”

The Rev Fred spent most of his speech, pulling his own trumpet. His one memorable contribution to the debate was a call for a new ‘vice squad’. While concerned that the previous squad was corrupt and racked with ‘vice’ he suggested that a ‘decency squad’ be set up.

A ‘decency squad’ is as laughable as it is subversive. ‘Decency squads’ operate in Iran, Afghanistan and China today where they determine how people will think through enforcing strict dress and behaviour codes. It was a chilling reminder of just how far morals groups in Australia are prepared to go to get the moral agenda that they think is right for all of us.

by: Fiona Patten - June 2005

***

This is the full letter from Michael Flood referred to above by Fiona Patten.

24 May 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in relation to the debate taking place in the NSW Parliament regarding a Private Member's Bill to legalise the sale of X18+ materials in New South Wales.
I am the co-author of two reports on pornography on which Dr Gordon Moyes draws in arguing against the introduction of this Bill. I wish to draw to your attention three points;

I would support the introduction of this Bill;
Our reports support the existing system for classifying X-rated materials;
Our reports argue for an extension of this system to the internet.

Dr Moyes draws on our reports in making the case that pornography causes such forms of anti-social behaviour as sexual assault. Dr Gordon Moyes quotes only from the summaries of the two reports. The full reports give a more complex account of this relationship, emphasise the dangers particularly of violent pornography rather than sexually explicit media in general, explore the negative effects particularly of minors' exposure to pornography, and stress that children and adolescents should be provided with information and resources on sexual health, sexuality, and relationships. Nevertheless, Dr Moyes does quote accurately from these reports, and I do support the view that some forms of pornography, particularly violent pornography, are associated with violence against women.

However, Dr Moyes fails to note that our second report argues for an extension of the laws regulating X-rated materials currently in place in the ACT and Northern Territory, not their repudiation. In the report Regulating Youth Access to Pornography, we argue that adults should be able to access classified X-rated materials. We proposed that the system governing the distribution of X-rated videos in the ACT and Northern Territory be extended to the internet, such that Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) could host classified X-rated materials for adults' consumption.

As the second of our two reports states, "The objective of this proposal is to set up a system very similar to the one that now regulates X-rated videos... Under the proposed scheme Australian ISPs would be permitted to host pornographic websites on condition that the content had received an X rating and that effective age verification methods were in place. This would result in a liberalisation of the prevailing system in which Australian ISPs are forbidden to host material that would be rated RC, X or R and would permit the development of an Australian online adult industry selling X-rated material. But while representing a de jure liberalisation of online pornography, the proposed system of filtering, classification and age verification would represent a stringent de facto tightening of access to pornography by children and by adults as well." (Flood and Hamilton 2003b, p. 16)

Our reports also offer support for the OFLC's system of classifying X-rated and other materials. As the second of our two reports states, "In our judgment, while X-rated videos routinely portray sex in ways that are dehumanising and, arguably, subordinating and degrading to women, the existing classification and regulatory system is appropriate. ... The evidence we have reviewed suggests that, while exposure to X-rated videos may be offensive to many teenagers, especially girls, the existing classification system screens out portrayals of activities that may result in significant psychological and emotional harm and therefore does not require substantial change. There may well be a need to develop and apply additional enforcement of existing laws." (Flood and Hamilton 2003b, pp. 4-5)

Our report acknowledges that the existing classificatory system is not perfect. But improving the kinds of pornographic materials available to adults will not be helped by abandoning this system, and indeed would be hindered. We should not be adopting measures to attempt to stop adults' access to pornography per se, but measures to regulate this access and to encourage the development of better pornography. Legalising and regulating the distribution of (classified) pornographic materials is one way in which to improve its content and thus minimise potentially negative social impacts.

Sincerely,

Dr Michael Flood.

***

NSW X-rated video campaign abandoned. 26.05.05 NineMSN

A spokesman for the Christian Democrats explains the reasons for the clips from ANATOMY OF HELL not being shown.

"Due to a lack of interest from sitting members and lack of audio-visual equipment, we decided not to go ahead with the seminar or the screening of the film,"

Australian Christian Lobby executive chairman Jim Wallace.

Also speaking before the seminar, Mr Wallace said the film screening would be "as little as we can put on, I think maybe about three minutes".

"I think it's most appropriate that members of parliament see what the laws that they're administering are putting out into society,"

"Standards have degenerated ... (to the point) that if it's that bad in R18+, what are we going to get in X-rated?"

F*** Nile

"It's not being put on for fun, it's not entertainment,"

"People can get the video from shops, and I guess if any member says `Look, I'd like to see that in context' then he can go and get the video."

Peter Breen.

"....the screening would have been illegal because the scenes were taken out of context."

"It's scandalous material to be showing it in public, (it's) contrary to the law (and) is a great offence and the penalty is $11,000,"

******

The R18+ rating awarded to PALINDROMES on May 26th 2005 is being appealed. Madman Entertainment were the company that initially had the film classified. 

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

10 June 2005 
MEDIA RELEASE 
Review announced for the film Palindromes 

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Palindromes, directed by Todd Solondz.

 Palindromes was classified R18+ with the consumer advice, “Adult themes”, by the Classification Board on 6 June 2005. 

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 22 June 2005 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. 

******

Not content with censoring films, books, and computer games, the OFLC are now on a mission to chase struggling artists to have their video art rated. THE SHADOWERS by Monica Tichacek had some heat from the OFLC when it was first shown in Sydney. 

******

Whilst your average artist probably doesn't make much money. Government bureaucrats looking to approve their work for public consumption make a healthy $80,000 pa. If this sounds like a tempting wage, then you may want to get your application in for vacancies on the Classification Board. Closing date is July 8th.

(ARCHIVED) Look mum, no bans. SMH 24.06.05

Des Clark describes what the job entails. 

On the average day you might get a couple of cinema release films in the morning,"

More information can be found at:
www.oflc.gov.au/content.html?n=127&p=73

******

The new look OFLC ratings have been getting quite a bit of media attention this week. 

(ARCHIVED) A Hue and a cry. SMH 07.06.05

Cat Burgess from Design Company, Emery Frost, explains their choice of colours for the ratings. R18+ and X18+ are black.

"The particular thing was to draw attention to MA, so we assigned red to that because it has implications of 'stop' and being something of a warning. Green is associated with 'go'; it's much more positive."

***

Australian Government
Office of Film and Literature Classification
6 June 2005
MEDIA RELEASE

UNIFIED APPROACH TO FILM & GAMES CLASSIFICATION A WORLD FIRST

New look colour classifications make family entertainment choices easier

The Office of Film and Literature Classification released new look classification markings today that will make it easier for people to choose films, DVDs, videos and computer games that are suitable for themselves, their family and friends.

Converging technology has been a key reason behind the changes, with common classification markings introduced across film and computer games products for the first time - as well as the introduction of new look colour symbols.

“The classifications themselves have not changed – rather the appearance and consistency of the classification markings across all film, DVD’s and computer games products,” said Director of the OFLC, Mr Des Clark. “We have extensively researched and tested these designs. The public – parents in particular - have told us that colour, size and consistent positioning on packaging and advertising make it easier for them to locate and use classification information.”

The key changes to the classification markings are:

• Films and computer games distributed in Australia will for the first time carry the same colour-coded markings. This unified approach is a world first.

• Colour is the most obvious new element of the common classification markings for films and games. G is green. PG is yellow. M is blue. MA15+ is red (see attachment). R18+ and X18+ remain black and white, but are consistent with the new design. R18+ and X18+ do not apply to computer games.

• As has always been the case, restrictions apply to products classified MA15+, R18+ and X18+. This aspect of the classification is now highlighted by the inclusion of a black “Restricted” bar beneath each of these symbols – particularly to minimise confusion between M & MA15+.

• The new markings also feature consumer advice in a prominent position. This has previously been available on the product, but has not been as easy to see. The change was made in response to OFLC consumer research which revealed that people increasingly want to see more information than just the classification on their entertainment products.

• All Classification markings can now be found consistently located on the bottom left-hand corner of film and computer game packaging and advertising.

“We live in an increasingly borderless world of entertainment, where the delivery technology is rapidly converging. It makes sense that people should be able to use one system to become informed about classification of entertainment, particularly when the traditional ways in which we are used to receiving our entertainment are so rapidly changing and evolving,” said Mr Clark.

“From now on you will start to see brochures, posters, infomercials, and new classification advice slides on home entertainment, at the cinema and on TV advertising, which will help you use this system. Classifications are there to inform your choices, and we want this to be easier.”

All films and games classified after 26 May 2005 are required to carry the new markings. The change is not retrospective and many products that were classified before that date will continue to carry the simple black and white markings.

The following is the speech that Des Clark made at the launch of the new ratings markings.

6TH June 2005 1:00pm

Acknowledgements

• Attorney General, The Hon Phillip Ruddock
• Senator Marise Payne
• Sir Quentin Thomas, President of the British board of Film Classification
• Ladies and Gentlemen.

Introduction

1. I know it’s a little more hectic than usual for our industry at this time of year – with some of you only recently back from Cannes and Los Angeles for E3. We appreciate your time with us today.

2. We’re pleased to have the Attorney General with us to officially launch our new classification markings, and you will be hearing from him in a few minutes time.

Changing media, communications and marketing landscapes

3. It goes without saying, that the media, communications and marketing landscapes have radically altered in the past ten years.

4. We’re all conducting our business in a world where 75% of Australians have access to the internet (and more than 4 million Australians have made a purchase online) … 73% of Australians own a mobile phone (one in four children aged from six to 13 now have a mobile phone and more than 90 per cent of children aged from six to nine have used a mobile phone) and more than 27% now have subscription TV. Those brought up in the “television age” and those who have grown up since continue to integrate these new technologies into their daily lives.

5. In recent years, the number of media formats and channels has exploded … changing the way people consume content and slowly dividing the mass market into many fragments.

6. While audiences are becoming more fragmented and more “niche” in their consumption of content, their enthusiasm and dedication is rising. Many viewers are willing to consume content – and pay for it – multiple times, in a variety of formats.

Converging entertainment

7. It was once said the citizens of the Net and the Web live in “a world without walls” ... These days, life “offline” seems to be heading in a similar direction. As citizens of the entertainment industry, we are now experiencing a similar, borderless world … a borderless world of entertainment.

8. “Merge” and “converge” seem to be the two of the most frequently used expressions this year.

9. Just a few years ago, we were reading articles with Orwellian-style predictions about what the “brave new world” of converging technology might all mean. Today, convergence is delivering real profits and not just headlines.

10. Convergence is real … it’s not going away … and, whilst it brings many opportunities, it also presents one of the greatest challenges to our identity as an industry …

11. Television networks, movie studios, publishers, and radio stations are no longer the sole custodians of entertainment content. “User-generated content” has arrived. Individuals are publishing their own content in record numbers through the use of blogs (web logs) and wikis (editable web pages). Some “bloggers” are even starting to sell advertising space on their sites.

12. Last week, we learned our major force in the telecommunications sector, Telstra, will help drive the “internet TV revolution” with “TV-Plus” … television over broadband internet.

13. Online, mobile and digital TV media are being used more and more by marketers to connect and build relationships with their potential consumers.

14. Popular television programming is now the beginning of an extended stream of products including as DVD’s, video games.

15. Music downloading is gaining respectability – and the music industry is embracing the internet as means of distributing their product. Media and entertainment companies are joining forces, working with police in a sustained and successful effort to crack down on piracy.

16. New devices and new media will continue to flourish … By the end of 2005 a recent Deloitte report predicted there are likely to be two billion mobile phone subscriptions globally. Currently there are around 18 million in Australia (by contrast there are only around 10 million fixed phone lines).

Changing delivery

17. Of course, this represents a huge opportunity for content producers – particularly as improvements in network speed, processing power and screen quality make the consumption of content more appealing.

18. Australians have already started watching television on their mobiles.

19. And whilst telcos are challenging media companies in the entertainment arena, the computer is challenging traditional telephony with the take up of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) … as consumers talk computer to computer free anywhere in the world.

20. More and more customers choosing terrestrial broadcasts rather than cable for digital TV.

21. A recent Accenture report estimated that more content will be created over the next two years than over the entire history of mankind … and 93 per cent of that content will be digital.

22. Wireless operators are experimenting with Digital Terestrial Television (or DTTV) networks as a way to expand their revenue base.

23. 60% of Australian households now own a DVD player. This appetite for DVDs and portable music players is driving demand for emerging products such as personal video recorders, portable video players and video on demand.

24. And, most relevant to today’s launch, there are well over 4 million games consoles in Australian homes. (And almost 40 per cent of Australian homes are estimated to have games consoles).

Film and computer game convergence

25. Computer and console games, in particular, have become the leisure activity by which many of our young people choose to distinguish themselves from adults.

26. The collaboration between game developers and movie studios is one of the most visible signs of our converging entertainment platforms. Blockbuster movies are increasingly being developed in tandem with best-selling games, using the same characters, the same narrative threads, the same look and feel, and in some cases even the same voice and motion talent. Game narration is rapidly becoming a standard part of the contract for high profile actors.

27. This symbiotic relationship between games and movies – and the growing capabilities of videogames consoles and PC’s, most of which can now play DVDs – is generating a profound change in both industries. And it is one of the driving forces behind our changes to the classification markings.

Regulating convergence

28. The true scale of many of these changes to the entertainment landscape are yet to be felt. Many broadcasting, media and publishing firms are large, so a significant number of emerging content providers are also “born large.” Firms such as Time Warner and News Corporation have entered the digital content era with worldwide operations.

29. Back home, we’re about to witness the merging of our two major entertainment and communications regulatory authorities – the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the ACA to form ACMA… Again, convergence was the driving force behind the merger – As Communications Minister Helen Coonan said when announcing the new body: New regulatory structures are required to deal with these changes.

30. In this world the major role of the OFLC will be to provide information to consumers about the content they see.

The consumer’s new world

31. The underlying driver of change is the public’s insatiable appetite for new content and choice. They want more content in a variety of formats so they can consume it whenever and wherever they want.

32. Consumers also have significantly different expectations about the types of services available, their costs and availability than they did a decade ago.

33. Businesses are responding by restructuring the ways they do business, what they offer their customers and their relationships with other businesses.

34. And governments must do the same…

35. So what are the new rules in this borderless world of entertainment?

36. Despite the fact we’re witnessing a consumer-lead revolution, the consumers are often overwhelmed and confused by the choices and the pace of change.

37. Consumers have more choices … and they want to be more informed about their choices … but they have less time.

38. Parents, in particular, have less time – but are more conscious of making the right decisions for their children. They need to be armed with the right information to be able to quickly make those decisions.

39. The simplicity of the offer is paramount – in this environment and anything that can assist in making the offer clear and easy to understand will be welcomed by consumers.

40. Our role at the OFLC, like yours, includes anticipating and keeping pace with changes in the industry – and helping our Australian audiences to understand the changes to stay informed.

41. As we progress through the next ten years audiences will continue to fragment across ever-increasing media choices. Internet penetration into the home will be close to absolute as broadband becomes the standard level of connection and the PC is just one amongst a host of household appliances that have an online connection. Digital television will be the standard and interactivity will be integrated into almost all television shows and advertising.

42. The role of regulation will keep evolving as new media explodes. Our role at the OFLC is to work with every one of you to ensure that industry is not constrained by bureaucracy.

Protecting Australian values

43. But we all need to be clear that our over-riding imperative is to help provide a safer community for children and families.

44. The world of technology might be transforming, but the values we hold dear in Australian society are still the benchmark for regulation. How they evolve will guide our hand.

45. Consumer attitudes to entertainment also change – and we’re constantly monitoring those changes to stay abreast of new consumer trends and concerns.

46. Our recent consumer research indicated:

- That our Australian audiences were able to apply the same rules to the classification of both films and computer games.

- People generally identified the same classifiable elements in relation to individual films and games as did the Board in its reports on each of the films and games.

- People also strongly supported the need for consumer advice - and in many cases argued that the consumer advice needed to be more detailed.

47. The new classification markings are designed to address these issues and make classification information easier to find and use.

Conclusion

48. Before I hand you over to the Attorney General to talk in greater detail about the changes we have made to the determined markings, I’d like to thank those of you who have been working very closely with our team behind the scenes in recent weeks and months as we developed these new markings. Your time and your input has been very important to this process – and, we believe, resulted in a very progressive and relevant set of changes.

49. Here’s what some of us had to say about the changes. …

50. And compliments to 20th Century Fox on being the first company to use the new determination in their print advertising.

***

New classifications pave way for R-rated games. The Age 06.06.05

Associate Professor Jeffrey Brand, of Bond University, part of a reference group for the Office of Film and Literature Classification, said a new rating to be announced today would see the end of the G8+ rating for computer games, replacing those games with a PG rating.

......Professor Brand said R-rated computer games were inevitable here. He believed they would be available after the next classification review.

The latest review makes it more likely R-rated games will be allowed because it standardises films and games, and R-rated films are already legal, he said

The ban on R-rated games related to a perception that games had a greater effect on people than films because they are interactive, he said.

Violent games still don't rate. SMH 07.06.05

The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia's president, John Watts, said the new system was a "baby step" towards a fairer regime and called on the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to end the censorship of R- and X-rated computer games.

"The average games player is between the age of 17 and 39. They're not children," Mr Watts said. The association would stepping up its campaign for classification, he said.

Mr Ruddock said there was consensus among the states and territories on restricting violent computer games and change was not on the agenda. The decision aimed to protect children.

Mr Ruddock's spokesman, Charlie McKillop, said the perceived anomaly - that R-rated DVDs and videos were available while computer games were not - did not detract from the policy.

******

On June 7th, debate continued in the NSW Legislative Council over the bill to legalise the sale/rental of X18+. Unfortunately Labor chose not to support the bill, and along with the Liberals, Nationals, and Independents, they voted against it. The sponsor of the bill, Peter Breen, with the Greens and Democrats were the only ones to support it. The full details of who voted can be found at the end of the debate.

Jim Wallace, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby attempted to confuse the situation with a planned screening of the most extreme parts from the film ANATOMY OF HELL. The film is rated R18+, a category where sex and violence can exist. The bill however was debating X18+, where all forms of violence are banned. Persuading people that the X18+ rating contains violence was a successful tactic for the Religious Right back in 1985 when X18+ was first outlawed in NSW. It worked again for Brian Harradine in 2000 when he screened unclassified films to Federal Politicians as examples of the X18+ rating. This resulted not in the hoped change of name from X18+ to NVE (Non-Violent Erotica), but in even more censorship of the category.

Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans of the Democrats had some sensible things to say when he spoke in favour of the bill. Here is a press release he issued on January 31st 2005.

Censorship?

Contrary to popular belief, the sale of non-violent erotica, or Adult films rated X by the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) is illegal in NSW due to scare mongering by the Fred Niles of this world back in the 1980’s.

Regardless of that fact, any person over the age of 18 can walk into an Adult bookshop, and purchase a video or a D.V.D. You can mail order it from the ACT and it’s OK to own it, but not meant to buy the stuff here!

The X classification is a legal category under the Federal Act, but illegal in NSW. However, X 18+ rated non-violent erotic films are being sold in all manner of outlets such as petrol stations and family video stores in NSW despite penalties of 12 months jail.There is now an emerging market selling sexually violent RC (Refused Classification) pirated material.

According to the EROS Association, over 3 million adult videos and DVDs are sold in NSW with a turn over of more than $45 million a year! The profits made from the sale of X-rated films are very substantial.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft estimated the cost of counterfeit movie and pornographic DVDs to be worth $200 million.The Eros Association estimate that 80% of adult videos sold in NSW are pirated copies and 75% haven’t been classified.

The Carr government had a chance to bring the NSW Act into line with the Federal Act and enable effective classification regulation but chose to keep their heads in the sand.

A parliamentary inquiry into the Classification Act recommended “the Attorney-General consider either establishing a licensing scheme, similar to that which operates in the ACT to allow controlled premises to sell X-rated material in NSW or taking more enforcement action against breaches of the legislation.

But, the Car government has failed to act on either options and films showing the most abhorrent sexual acts are being sold in Adult bookstores, along side Adult films which have been classified X18+ non violent erotica by the (OFLC).

It is clear current laws are now obsolete and the police have better things to do than busting someone for selling Debbie Does Dallas. Progressive M.P.’s have recognized that the law needs to be changed and the State has to regulate the sale of X-rated adult films in NSW to and close operators who also sell (R.C.) films in Adult bookshops.

The Premier has shown lack of leadership and consistency on the censorship debate.
“The Premier came out courageously against the banning of the French Art House film Baise Moi when he was quoted in The Australian May the 13th 2002 saying: “I don’t like the idea of adults being told what they can see and what they can read.”

The Carr government and the Coalition did not support amendments to regulate the sale of X-rated films in NSW moved by Reform The Legal System MLC, Mr Peter Breen, and opposed attempts made by Dr Chesterfield-Evans to refer government legislation amending the Classification Act to a parliamentary Committee in parliament last night.

“Bob Carr pretends to be a civil libertarian and anti-censorship. He talks the talk, but won’t walk the walk on a controversial, but common sense issue that only a handful of progressive MP’s are willing to take a stand on,” Dr Chesterfield-Evans concluded.

However during the debate he should have thought twice before making this classic contribution to the snuff movie myth.

"I have seen shops in Pitt Street, Goulburn Street and George Streets that have erotic videos, videos depicting the infliction of pain and bestiality, and possibly snuff movies—movies which show an actual murder—although I have not seen any of those."

So it remains illegal to sell or rent X18+ films in NSW, but it is legal to purchase and possess them if they come from the ACT or NT. As mentioned in the last update, the law is widely disregarded in Sydney. Unclassified films can easily be found all over the city. The bizarre situation exists that within a 5km radius of the OFLC offices in Surry Hills (Censorship Central), there probably exists the largest concentration of unclassified films for sale and hire in the the whole of Australia!

Finally, if you think that the availability of unclassified films in NSW is purely the result of ten years of Labor Government, it is not. They were also widely available under the previous Liberal Government.

So despite housing the headquarters of the OFLC, and the failure of the bill,  the citizens of NSW can continue living in arguably the most censorship free state in the nation.

*** 

The speakers involved are:

The Hon. David John CLARKE, MLC
Current Member of the Legislative Council
Member of Liberal Party

The Hon. Peter James BREEN, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Independent

The Hon. Dr Arthur CHESTERFIELD-EVANS, MLC
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of Australian Democrats

The Hon. Henry Shui-Lung TSANG, MLC
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Parliamentary Secretary 
Member of Australian Labor Party

Reverend the Hon. (Fred) Frederick John NILE, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Temporary Chair of Committees 
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

Mr (Greg) Gregory John DONNELLY, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of Australian Labor Party

Ms Lee RHIANNON, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of The Greens

The Hon. Richard Hargrave COLLESS, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Deputy Opposition Whip in the Legislative Council 
Member of The Nationals

The Hon. Charlie John Stuart LYNN, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of Liberal Party

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Keith Mackenzie MOYES, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

The Hon. Melinda Jane PAVEY, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of The Nationals

***

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL

Page: 4 

Second Reading 

Debate resumed from 24 May 2005. 

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [2.30 p.m.]: The Opposition is opposed to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Peter Breen. The purpose of the bill is stated to be to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995, as follows: 

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and 

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and 

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material.

Effectively, the bill will legalise films rated X 18+ in New South Wales. Provisions in the bill restricting the sale of such films to specific premises and increasing penalties for allowing minors access to such material are merely a sugar-coated overlay, the effect of which is to give the bill the semblance of controlling pornography when its effect will be precisely the opposite. 

I believe that the Hon. Peter Breen is a thoughtful and compassionate man, and a person who is well intentioned. But from time to time I believe he reaches conclusions that are way off beam, and on this issue he is way off beam. I believe that he is genuinely concerned with the deleterious effects of the almost universally agreed negative aspects of some X-rated or unclassified films, such as those promoting violence, bestiality or child abuse. But I believe that he is monumentally misguided and tragically wrong in what he believes his bill will achieve. His bill will legalise much of the pornography industry which the State Government purports to oppose but, through inaction, condones by turning a blind eye to the law being enforced. 

In his second reading speech the Hon. Peter Breen argued that I show an inconsistency by, on the one hand, supporting freedom of speech in relation to religious matters and opposing religious vilification laws and, on the other hand, opposing the liberalisation of laws to allow greater access to sexually explicit films. He argued that I support a wide freedom to express religious views but a narrow freedom to watch sexually explicit films. I believe that I maintain a consistency. The real inconsistency is in the position of the Hon. Peter Breen himself. On the one hand he supports a greatly expanded freedom to view sexually explicit films, and yet he is probably the leading proponent in this Parliament for the introduction of religious vilification laws in New South Wales which would have the effect of restricting free speech. In fact, so strong is his view that there should be limits on what people can say on religious matters that he has proposed a bill introducing an offence of religious vilification. It is his position that is contradictory and inconsistent. 

The Hon. Peter Breen is wrong in his assertion that my position is one of inconsistency. I believe it is one of total consistency. I believe in freedom to express religious views, even though I might find such views to be in bad taste or unsavoury, and even if such views are unfounded in fact, or ridicule or reflect adversely on the religious views of others. If, however, someone expresses views or comments that breach the civil or criminal law, that is a different matter. If someone is defamed, then there is recourse to the civil law, or even possibly the criminal law. If there is incitement to violence under the guise of religious expression, there are existing criminal laws in place to deal with that situation. So far Australia's tradition of freedom of religious discussion has worked quite satisfactorily; it has been uneventful. There has been no significant disruption to the social fabric. There has been no major outbreak of criminal activity that can be pinpointed to an abuse of freedom of speech on religious matters which could not be dealt with by existing laws. 

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: Normally I would not interrupt the Hon. David Clarke on this issue, but the bill is about X-rated videos; it is not about religion. Most of the Hon. David Clarke's contribution thus far has been about religious tolerance, which is the subject of other legislation. I ask you to remind the honourable member that his remarks should be directed to the bill before the House. 

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: To the point of order: I was comparing the stand of the Hon. Peter Breen with his contradictory views on what he proposes under this bill. 

The PRESIDENT: Order! It has been a convention in this House that comments made during debate on a bill may be more general than, say, comments made in question time. However, I remind the Hon. David Clarke that imputations must not be made against another member of the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: There is no strong correlation between religious expression and criminal conduct; there is no evidence of such freedom of speech initiating or fomenting criminality. On the other hand, whilst I believe in a wide freedom to read what we like and watch whatever film we like, from time to time this right may result in the fundamental rights of others being infringed upon or placed at risk. There is, for example, the right of children not to be sexually preyed upon or sexually abused. There is the right of women not to be raped or sexually molested. There is the right of every person not to be subjected to acts of violence. 

If there is a very definite or overwhelming nexus between the availability of certain sexually explicit material and the perpetration of crimes against, for example, women or children, that puts a very different complexion on matters. At what level, if any, do we set the bar in allowing unfettered access to such material? The answer is that we need to set the bar at a level necessary to restrict material that has a proven high propensity to produce criminality, the effect of which infringes upon the rights of others. I believe that the Hon. Peter Breen's bill has not set the bar at the right level; I believe that he has set the bar far too low. I believe that his bill will allow the liberalisation of material that has a very strong causation in the perpetration of crimes that infringe on the rights of others in our community. These films are a major contributing factor to such crimes. I believe that there is an abundance of scientific and other evidence to establish this nexus beyond reasonable doubt. 

There have been numerous investigations and studies of the deleterious effects of different types of pornography. One of the most comprehensive was the 1,960-page report of the United States Attorney-General's Commission on Pornography some years ago. Among its many disturbing findings, it established a very clear correlation between sexually explicit films portraying the violent abuse of women by men and acts of sexual violence, including sex crimes against women. The report found that, at the very least, such films led to the degradation and humiliation of women. It found that the actions of sexual violence against women contributed to what is known as the rape myth, that is, the idea, believed by some men, that women really want to be abused even when they vigorously deny it. The report established that pornography was addictive and progressive in nature. It showed that X-rated films eventually, and inevitably, reached a certain percentage of minors despite supposed legal safeguards. One of the report's most disturbing findings was that certain types of pornography are often used by paedophiles to soften children's defences against sexual abuse. It found that paedophiles lure children down a pathway via pornography to accepting as normal the depravities and abuse that are perpetrated on them. 

The report established that premises used for the distribution of such X-rated materials very often acted as a natural magnet to a secondary industry of support services such as prostitution or drug distribution. A study commissioned and funded by the United States justice department found that even magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler , which are usually not included in the X-rated category, have been responsible for promoting children as sexual objects. The study also found: 

… from the very beginning since 1954 (with the commencement of publication) children had appeared in sexual contexts with adults in these magazines. 

The report noted:

 … over 6,000 depictions of children were found in these 3 magazines alone from 1954 to 1984. 

One could also refer to sexually explicit films in which young adults are portrayed as minors. Such films cunningly achieve the desired effect of portraying sexual abuse of children without exploiting children as participants. At present the only legal outlet for X-rated videos in Australia are the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; they are not legally available in any of the States. 

The Hon. Peter Breen promises that his bill will regulate this industry and thereby get rid of the criminal element. I seem to recall that this was the same argument that was bandied around to support the legalisation of prostitution. We were promised that by legalising prostitution in New South Wales we would get rid of the criminal element. And what has been the result? We have had the proliferation not only of legal brothels but also the continuation and, indeed, increased proliferation of illegal brothels. Both legal and illegal brothels are saturated with organised crime. The organised crime element is alive and thriving in both. Would anybody suggest otherwise? 

As a consequence, we have more illegal brothels than ever before, and we have more criminals attached to both legal and illegal brothels than ever before. What we have is the worst of all worlds, and we will get the worst of all worlds if this bill becomes law. We will have a proliferation of X-rated videos, many of which will be prodding the law to see how far it can be pushed, but we will not see a reduction in the types of videos and DVDs that the Hon. Peter Breen says he is keen to remove from the marketplace. X-rated videos will continue to reach the hands of minors but in greater numbers because the passing of this bill will simultaneously result in an automatic commensurate proliferation among minors. More severe penalties will be of little consequence. 

The bill's intended object of ending the trade in the repulsive categories of films which the Hon. Peter Breen seeks to target will fail. Why would the authorities be any more dedicated to enforcing a new law against these films when they do not enforce the present law under which these films are already illegal? The Hon. Peter Breen's argument that the X-rated video industry in New South Wales is unregulated is just not true. The fact is that the industry is already regulated; it is regulated so that X-rated videos are illegal. It cannot be more regulated than that. Let us be very clear: X-rated videos are illegal in New South Wales, and so are those that fall into the unclassified category. Why is it then that such films are so readily available from outlets in New South Wales? Why is it that the Hon. Peter Breen was able to so freely purchase X-rated videos as well as videos which, because of their perversity, have no classification at all? The answer is: because the law is not being enforced at all. 

If the Hon. Peter Breen was so easily able to purchase such films from New South Wales outlets, as he advised this Parliament, then why is it so difficult for the police to locate them? Why do the police not enforce the law? We have probably all received written representations from Fiona Patten on behalf of an organisation called Body Politics, which lobbies for the passage of the bill before us. I do not agree with her views, but she puts the case for this bill articulately and rationally. Many of her statements are factual, but I cannot agree with her conclusions. She does, however, highlight the absurdity of the position in this State, where, despite the large number of illegal videos and DVDs sold from New South Wales outlets, there are very few convictions. 

According to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, in the four years from 2000 to 2003 inclusive there were only 14 convictions for selling or exhibiting X 18+ or refused classification films, with only six receiving what were, in fact, nominal fines. What a triumph of law enforcement that is! Everyone would surely agree that if there is such a widespread illegal activity, but so few prosecutions—whether or not they agree that it should remain illegal—something is amiss. It is not difficult to find a reason for that: It is a reluctance to pursue the offenders; it has nothing to do with difficulties of apprehension or prosecution. 

We can all recall the days when New South Wales was top-heavy with illegal casinos. Despite the very occasional stage-managed police raid purporting to close down an illegal casino here or there, they continued to thrive. It was as if those casinos had protection from, shall we say, a highly placed unseen source. But then the State Government decided to legalise casinos and take a substantial cut of the profits. Amazingly, from that time forward the illegal casinos ceased to exist. And why did they cease to exist? It was not because they had no clientele; it was not because the new legal casinos forced them off the market; and it was not a case of market forces at work. It was because the police got the green light to close them down—I mean to really close them down. With the shackles removed, that is exactly what the police did. The veto no longer existed. When there was the will to close down illegal casinos they were closed down. If there were a similar will to stop the New South Wales trade in Commonwealth-classified X-rated videos or unclassified videos it would be stopped. It is as simple as that. 

The Hon. Peter Breen's bill proposes increased penalties for exhibiting and selling the perverse and unsavoury films presently refused classification. It proposes penalty increases for those who peddle films involving bestiality, child sex abuse and so forth. Most people agree with that proposition, but we do not need to legalise Commonwealth-classified X-rated films to achieve that effect. The main effect of this bill is not to stop the already illegal trade in such films; the real effect is to legalise and encourage the spread of X-rated films. We do not need this bill at all. What we need is for the present law to be enforced. We need the shackles to be taken off the police and for them to locate this illegal material, which I am sure they can do with the ease demonstrated by the Hon. Peter Breen. We need the police to confiscate this material and prosecute those who break the law by exhibiting and selling it. 

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.45 p.m.]: I support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18 + Films) Bill, which would remove the ban on X-rated videos—in common parlance, non-violent erotica, material of a sexual nature but not with any violence associated with it, consensual sex. Classification X relates to non-violent erotica; classification R relates to violence, which is either sexual or non-sexual, but generally does not involve close-ups of genitalia and does not concentrate on the sexual aspects of the violence; and RC is refused classification. 

This bill reverses only the ban on X-rated material. It does not go as far as the Australian Capital Territory legislation, which licenses sellers of this material and uses the fees from such licences to police the illegal sale of material that is refused classification. It would seem that police in New South Wales are not enforcing this law. There is a three-wise-monkeys policy: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. I have seen shops in Pitt Street, Goulburn Street and George Streets that have erotic videos, videos depicting the infliction of pain and bestiality, and possibly snuff movies—movies which show an actual murder—although I have not seen any of those. It is possible to hire or buy these videos, and the shops have booths in which people can watch them. 

The point made by Fiona Patten and the former chief censor is that there is a difference between non-violent erotica, which is consensual sex of various types, and violence. It always worries me that the religious Right, if I can call it that, is very concerned about the sexual aspects of such material, but neglect the violence. I believe that the depiction of violence is far more serious than the depiction of non-violent erotica, and it is important to separate the two aspects of censorship. 

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Are you moving an amendment? 

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: No, I have not had time to draft an amendment, but I think an amendment would be a good idea. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile held an information session at which he was to show an R-rated film to demonstrate the evils thereof. I was unable to attend so I asked one of my staff to attend in my place. The staff member reported that there were four people in attendance, but there was a problem and the film was not shown. Apparently a private briefing was offered to the two members of Parliament who were present, but the other two people in attendance simply sat there and wondered what was to happen next, then left. 

They were none the wiser after attending the briefing. But the point of the screening was that if this was an R-rated video, then an X-rated video was worse. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The screening did not proceed.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The screening did not proceed, but it is a worry that the R-rated video was seen as less serious than an X-rated video in the material provided by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and spoken about by Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman of the Australian Christian Lobby. 

The other question that needs to be addressed is the availability of this material if the bill is passed and police raid the premises to which I have referred in the central business district and elsewhere. The videos and DVDs that are currently available will be restricted, and a large number will not be classified at all, either because of their content or because it is too expensive to have them classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification in terms of the sales that each individual video is likely to generate, particularly in view of the competition in regard to unclassified material. 

But even if that should happen, there is still an immense availability of pornography on the Internet. I am reminded of the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act, an excellent report on which I spoke in this House on 12 June 2002. The inquiry received evidence that 2 per cent of pornographic material seen in Australia is hosted by Australian Internet service providers. But it would be technologically impossible to make Internet service providers responsible for the content of their sites. It would be beyond their capacity to look at all the files that enter their sites, within a fraction of a second, and to read and vet such a huge volume of material. 

As a result of pressure by Senator Brian Harradine and the Federal Howard Government, the model bill contains the foolish measure that Internet service providers should be responsible for the material on their sites. Evidence from CSIRO technical experts has shown the impossibility of such a move. However, if they were obliged to do so or if unenforceable legislation declared such sites illegal, the 2 per cent of pornographic material hosted in Australia would move overseas. As the late Doug Moppett famously observed, it would be like closing the window after the wall has blown down. 

The 56K modems which most people use to download images from the Internet are quite slow. The download takes 20 to 30 times longer than the filming of the most grainy images. Images downloaded using broadband technology are closer to film quality and although some people will prefer to retain videos and DVDs, others may choose this option. I believe the better approach would be to remove violence from videos and allow people to watch non-violent erotica if they wish. I can see no harm in that. 

I note the comments of the Hon. David Clarke about the legalisation of brothels. The unsavoury owners of illegal brothels did not become any more savoury when brothels were legalised. However, at least police know where the legal brothels are located. The Sex Workers Outreach Program can provide sex education to those workers, and encourage the use of condoms, which has helped to inhibit the spread of AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Another problem relates to sex slaves, who are brought here usually on visas either by trickery or false contracts, with the promise that they will be allowed to remain in Australia if they perform certain sex acts for those unsavoury brothel owners. 

During debate on the Disorderly Houses Amendment (Brothels) Bill I referred to women who charge for personal sex services and do not register their premises as a brothel. Indeed, often the addresses of these small, home-based businesses have been published or given to councils and a great fuss has been made by the somewhat unholy alliance of the more prurient members of councils with the legalised brothel owners, who do not want competition. The women who offer this type of service do not want to draw attention to themselves, and obviously their clients are of the same view. The suggestion that these premises are rowdy or disorderly is a nonsense. Indeed, one might question why neighbours would be so nosy as to want to know what people are doing within the privacy of their own homes. 

Unfortunately, the Disorderly Houses Amendment (Brothels) Bill undermined the provision which stipulated that two private workers should work together to provide security. Premises were found to be illegal and workers were hounded out of their houses, I believe in the interests of the large, legalised brothels. For the Hon. David Clarke to suggest that this has led to a decline in the moral standards of society is a nonsense. Why the church continues to hound people for sexual practices that have been entrenched since time began is quite beyond me. I do not understand why this attitude of prohibition exists to such an extent. However, the bill goes some way towards addressing the problem of the purchasing of non-violent erotica between consenting adults. 

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [2.58 p.m.]: I oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which is sponsored by the Hon. Peter Breen. The object of the bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995: 

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and 

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and 

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material. 

In my view—and I believe in the view of many others—material classified as X 18+ is hard-core pornography. To sanitise this material by calling it "non- violent erotica", as was tried a few years ago, simply does not wash. Material that is rated X 18+ does not contain any physical sexual violence but it treats women, and in some cases men, as sexual commodities. 

If anyone has any doubts about the content of the material I recommend they read the 2003 discussion paper from the Australia Institute titled "Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the extent of exposure and likely effects". The co-authors are Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton. Pages vii and viii of the summary chapter provide a particularly graphic explanation of what is contained in typical X 18+ videos. Reading the explanation reminded me of a quote from the New South Wales Parliamentary Library research service 2003 briefing paper titled "X Rated Films and the Regulation of Sexually Explicit Material". Chapter 4.3 deals with the debate about X 18+ videos in New South Wales in the mid-1980 and at page 11 it says: 

There followed a screening in the NSW Parliamentary theatre of a video compiled by the Film Censorship Board depicting representative scenes from a range of video classifications. Around 40 NSW parliamentarians attended the screening, some of them walked out early. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Nick Greiner and Paul Lander left early, looking decidedly queasy". 

The briefing paper noted that while reiterating his Government's commitment to non-censorship, Neville Wran, who was then the Premier, said categorically: 

There are certain things that are beyond the pale. 

I suggest to honourable members that those words are as relevant today as they were then. I was somewhat surprised when on 26 May the Hon. Peter Breen, through a question without notice, effectively speared the plan of two members of this Chamber to show a cross-section of material that is currently the subject of the debate. He can answer for himself as to why he did it, but I suspect that he does not want politicians to see first-hand exactly what is in the material that is the subject of the bill. In light of missing out on our film review, let me quote some excerpts from the Flood and Hamilton discussion paper I referred to above. For those with a weak stomach, now might be a good time to check their messages on their mobile phones. The discussion paper stated in part: 

A typical X-rated video shows a series of scenarios, each lasting for anywhere from the few minutes to half an hour 

… It then oulines a list of common practices. The paper further stated:

 Typical practices depicted in X-rated videoes also include "double penetration" (where two men simultaneously have vaginal and anal intercourse with the one woman), one woman kneeling between two or more men and practising fellatio on each in turn, and one woman engaged simultaneously in vaginal or anal intercourse with one man or two men and fellatio with a second or third man. 

Two additional sexual practices have become staples in X-rated videos. It is standard practice in heterosexual pornography for the male partner to withdraw from intercourse or fellatio before orgasm to ejaculate onto the body or face of his female partner. These are commonly described as "cumshots", while the sub-genre "facials" refers to images of men ejaculating onto women's faces and women's faces covered in semen …

Across the myriad of pornographic images and texts, there are common classificatory schemes for types or genres of content. Among X-rated videos, there are series focused on particular sexual practices, sexual participants, body parts or other asepcts of sexuality. On the shelves of an adult store, one can find videos focused on "teens" and young women, "new" or "amateur" female participants, anal intercourse, fellatio, male ejaculation or "cumshots", breasts, buttocks, "lesbian" sex, Asian and black women, voyeurism, large penises, multiple male partners or "gangbangs", pregnant women 

… In looking at the proposed legislation, I had cause to go back and read the 1998 report of the Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Video Material Volumes One and Two. In commenting on video material similar to that being considered in this bill, the committee said: 

The dominant theme of this material also is that it "objectifies" and "commodifies" women. Rather than treating women as free and responsible initiators of human activity, the material in this category, although non-violent, treats women as sexual commodities to arouse the sexual desires of its target audience. 

The bulk of all pornographic material commercially available in Australia basically falls into this category. In general, there is little or no plot or character development and if there is a story line it is an excuse for the sex exploits contained in the material. 

The Committee, as did the Meese Commission also refers to this material as degrading in that it frequently "depicts people, usually women, as existing solely for the sexual satisfaction of others, usually men, or that it depicts people, usually women, in decidedly subordinate roles in their sexual relations with others, or that it depicts people engaged in sexual practices that would to most people be considered humiliating. 

Women are often depicted as sexually malleable for the purpose of satisfying male sexual desires. This is sometimes manifested by themes involving workplace sexual favours. Women are frequently depicted as eager for sexual experience of any kind and ever ready for any opportunity for sexual activity. 

Evidence cited by the joint select committee showed that such material engendered "a sexually calloused and manipulative orientation towards women" and " mediates in the mind of the habitual viewer a perception of women in general as promiscuous and available". 

Another aspect of pornography that is being increasingly understood is its addictive nature, particularly among men. Especially with its ease of access over the Internet, researchers are discovering that this material becomes a very serious and painful addiction for some. The article by Jack Cheetham titled "The perils of porn" in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 February 2005 highlights the personal impact on those who become addicted to X 18+ material. Dr Mary Anne Layden, an expert on the impact of this material, in her testimony to an American Senate committee on 18 November 2004, said: 

For the viewer, pornography increases the likelihood of sexual addiction and they respond in ways similar to other addicts. Sexual addicts develop tolerance and will need more and harder kinds of pornographic material.

The testimony is well worth reading. It is not doctrinaire, emotive or reactionary; it simply lays out a strong case against this material and its impact on people. It is only 3½ pages long, and I have spare copies for anyone who would like to read it. Those who argue that X 18+ material should be legally available often put the case that adults should be able to read, hear, and see what they want. The fact is that in Australia there is, and has been for many years, a classification arrangement in place that, although not perfect, provides a framework to classify publications, films, and computer games. 

The Hon. Peter Breen asserts that X 18+ videos and DVDs are readily available for purchase from adult shops in Kings Cross, Darlinghurst, George Street, and elsewhere. He also claims that other videos and DVDs that would be refused classification under the current regulatory framework are also available at the same outlets. If this is the case, the best way forward, in my view, is not to legalise the sale of the material but, rather, to improve the co-operation between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments so that the current laws can be better applied and enforced. The Hon. John Hatzistergos, in an answer to a question without notice from the Hon. David Oldfield on 22 February, made the point well. He said: 

I understand the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for the classification of DVDs and movies. States and Territories are responsible for the prosecution of offences relating to certain materials, but the Commonwealth classification legislation does not assist the police as the Commonwealth does not sufficiently resource its system. For instance, police investigating the sale of DVDs that might be X 18+ rated or unclassified have to apply in writing to the Office of Film and Literature Classification to have that office watch the DVD and decide whether it is X 18+ or unclassifiable. This is cumbersome. 

Clearly, through working together more closely, the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments can achieve real improvement in enforcing the current classification laws. The Hon. Peter Breen in his second reading speech said that there is nothing harmful or degenerate about X 18+ material. Of course, this is his opinion and he is entitled to it. However, many others disagree with him. It is interesting to note that at least four behavioural scientists whose work was scrutinised by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material identified harmful effects associated with X 18+ material. Dr Layden also made the same observations. It is worth quoting directly from page ix of the summary chapter of the Flood and Hamilton discussion paper. It states: 

A wide range of studies has been conducted among young people aged 18 to 25. One of the most important areas of social concern has been the impact of pornography on men's sexual behaviour towards women, and particularly male sexual aggression or rape. One major study integrated the findings of a broad range of research and concluded that there is consistent and reliable evidence that exposure to or consumption of pornography is related to male sexual aggression against women. This association is strongest for violent pornography and is still reliable for non-violent pornography, particularly when used frequently. 

In experimental studies, adults show significant strengthening of attitudes supportive of sexual aggression following exposure to pornography. These attitudes are measured by scales designed to measure 'rape myth acceptance', 'sexual callousness', 'adversarial sexual beliefs' and 'acceptance of interpersonal violence against women'.

On page x the authors note further: 

In our view, the research literature's documentation of significant associations between adult use of certain types of pornography and sexual aggression is of real concern. It is likely that similar relationships exist among teenagers … 

I also have very serious doubts that the so-called black market for this material would be wiped out if the sale of X 18+ material was legalised. Other members who spoke in this debate provided details of the black market that operates in the Australian Capital Territory, where the sale of such material is legal. Why would things be any different in New South Wales? Indeed, the Australian Capital Territory Government Registrar of X 18+ Film Licences has in the past made observations including: "Many breaches and offences are occurring undetected"; "There has been a significant level of unclassified, or Refused Classification, titles being sold or displayed for sale, or copied, in some licensed premises"; and "The industry is not meeting the requirements of the Act ." This is in a jurisdiction where X 18+ material is regulated. 

I also make the following point. To the extent that criminal elements are involved, particularly in the production of this material, surely nobody really believes that legalising it is suddenly going to clean up these things. Those not inclined to observe our laws tend to operate in the shadows whatever the legislative regime, especially if big dollars are involved. I strongly disagree with the concept of governments earning a revenue stream from taxing the production and/or sale of this material. In my view, this approach institutionalises and legitimises the material and does not serve the common good of our society. 

Dr. Layden's testimony also provides grim insights into the working lives of pornography performers, including high rates of substance abuse, typically alcohol and cocaine, depression, personality disorder, increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and domestic violence. 

Honourable members would know that the scheme for classification of publications, films and computer games in New South Wales is part of a national co- operative scheme. It has and continues to have the support of all Australian jurisdictions. All States in the Commonwealth currently prohibit the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ films. Amending New South Wales enforcement legislation in the way proposed by the bill, without giving due consideration to the situation in other States, runs counter to the Commonwealth-State censorship agreement. The bill would result in New South Wales being out of step with the States and the Commonwealth. 

Parliament has a critical role in developing and maintaining laws that take into account the common good of society. Claims by individuals for freedoms to do this or that need to be examined in the light of the impact on others and society in general. Furthermore, laws should also uphold both the dignity and respect of the human person. The bill, in my view, achieves neither. I believe it promotes the opposite. 

Moreover, the big challenge we must face up to is how we protect young people from being exposed to X 18+ and much worse material that is now readily available on the Internet. An article in the Weekend Australian on 23 and 24 April highlighted the fact that almost one in six children as young as eight who use the internet have been exposed to online pornography, most frequently through pop-up advertisements. Surely legislators need to turn their minds to how this issue can be addressed. For all the reasons outlined, I urge honourable members not to support the bill. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.17 p.m.]: The Greens congratulate Mr Peter Breen on the work he has done in introducing this important bill. It will legalise the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ videos. Listening to the debate today and on previous occasions, one would have to say that Mr Breen has certainly set the religious right hares running with this bill. Again, I am left wondering why the religious right revel in talking about and watching pornography. It is one of the curious things about life. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They do not. That is a misrepresentation. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection from the member and I will come to some of his actions later, because I think they prove otherwise. The bill will ensure that films classified X 18+ are sold only from restricted publication areas and it will result in increased penalties for allowing minors to access adult material. Current laws are very inconsistent. It is legal to buy X-rated material in New South Wales, it is legal to possess X-rated material in New South Wales, but it is not legal to sell X-rated material in New South Wales. That is just unworkable. 

Again, that is one of the many arguments that expose the religious right. We have a ridiculous system that is not working and cannot work. The bill will allow a clean-up of the industry, and the religious right are refusing to support it. That the Government refuses to support the bill reflects poorly on the Premier and the Attorney General. Their inaction has resulted in a dangerously unregulated industry. Even Prime Minister John Howard has made changes in this area, but the New South Wales Labor Government has not. There has been no attempt in New South Wales to enforce current laws. I do not believe the situation would be any different if the Coalition were in power. Despite the Hon. David Clarke's comments, I do not believe the Coalition would even try to change it. Even if it did, the industry would not be cleaned up. 

The Hon. Rick Colless: You speak for yourself. Don't speak for us. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection by Mr Colless. I am sure he would not go so far as stopping me commenting on the Coalition. Maybe he would. Despite Mr Clarke's comments, I argue that the Coalition would be unsuccessful in enforcing the law. The failure of the Carr Government to enforce current laws has left the door open for the expansion of the black market, with its associated corruption, exploitation, and organised crime—as illustrated very clearly by Mr Breen. Recently the Premier did not mind spending silly money on an advertising blitz to boast of his success in tackling crime. Here we have clear deficiencies in both the law and enforcement practices by New South Wales Police. Yet what do we see from the Premier? He sits on his hands.

The Premier's latest advertising pitch is insulting and meaningless. In October last year when the Government introduced a classifications bill, the Premier had the perfect opportunity to implement some of the proposals in Mr Breen's bill, but the Government failed to do anything. Sadly, even with this bill the Government still fails to do anything. Mr Breen's bill provides the Government with a perfect opportunity, and a very well argued one, to do the right thing. Proper regulation will help clean up this industry—as previously occurred with sex workers—and it will have the added benefit of directing much of the illegal profits into the public coffers. 

We have seen this happen in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and it would be the responsible approach to take in New South Wales. The markets in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are properly policed to ensure that only legally classified material is sold. It would be logical for the religious right to support this bill. The religious right—Reverend Moyes, Reverend Nile and Mr Clark—criticised Mr Breen and his bill, and shortly we will see them vote against the bill. I find their attitude very curious. 

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You're speaking for the hedonistic left. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Charlie, your interjections are not as good as they were in the past. They are not up to your usual standard. 

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Spot on, though. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Not at all, Charlie. We will see the religious right vote against this bill. If passed, this bill would greatly reduce the availability of illegal pornographic films. The bill offers a clean-up of the industry. That is what the Coalition and members at the right end of the crossbench have been calling for. They say a clean-up of the industry is needed. The bill would provide a method of regulating an industry that is totally unregulated at present. 

The religious right argue that all pornographic films and films depicting adults having consensual sex should be banned. But let us look at their actions. Last month Reverend Moyes and Reverend Nile were to jointly host a film event for the Australian Christian Lobby but, as we know, the film night did not eventuate. But we still have to wonder about this extraordinary event which was to be hosted by people who express great concern about the availability of pornographic films. 

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I did not host it. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: But I have seen the invitation with his photograph and name on it. Mr Breen is holding up the invitation. I regret that Hansard does not have a visual record so the invitation could be seen. It is on the record that Reverend Moyes was to host the event. For whatever reason— technical or perhaps cold feet at the last moment—the event did not go ahead. But why would they even contemplate holding such an event? What was the purpose of it? What did they expect to achieve? It is extraordinary. 

When I saw the invitation it reminded me of stories I heard when I used to come to Parliament in the 1980s to gain support from upper House members for various campaigns I was working on. On one occasion I was told that members would regularly receive pornography packs from Reverend Nile and that his argument for distributing them was that he wanted to remind members of the types of pornography available in New South Wales. I did not know Reverend Nile at the time and did not agree with what he was espousing, but I remember being quite shocked. I could not understand why this man, who clearly states he is against pornography, the rights of gay and lesbian people and a whole lot of things, would show pornography to other people. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: Standing Order 91 (3) states: 

… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on either House, members or officers will be considered disorderly. 

I have never distributed a pornographic pack. I do not know what a pornographic pack is. I ask the member to withdraw the remark. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I was repeating information that I had been given. Reverend Nile says he did not distribute pornography. I note that he emphasised "pornographic pack", so that may leave it open that he has distributed pornography in some form. I did use the term "pornography pack". I will withdraw that comment if it was inaccurate. 

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I consider the comment as having been withdrawn. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I accept. Don't believe all the hearsay you hear. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection by Reverend Nile. I thought of that story—which I was told some 20 years ago, in 1983—because he was hosting an event at which he wanted to show pornographic films. I find it extraordinary and I am still trying to understand it. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Australian Christian Lobby was screening extracts. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Australian Christian Lobby was screening it but he chose to host it. We all make decisions about events we associate with, and clearly those events reflect on our work as members of Parliament and the work of our parties. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It was recently held at Federal Parliament for all the members. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Reverend Nile tells us that a similar event was held at Federal Parliament, which adds to the point I have made. 

The Hon. Peter Breen: That would have been illegal too.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Breen reminds us that screening such films at Federal Parliament would be illegal. What are all these members of Parliament doing being involved in illegal events? If the Greens did it we would not hear the end of it. By not supporting the bill, members will enable a seriously corrupt industry to flourish unchecked. That is what members will allow when they vote against this bill. X-rated material is being sold in New South Wales. Ever year approximately three million illegal videos are sold under Premier Bob Carr. 

If by some miracle Mr Brogden won the next election the situation would continue under him. The situation will not change under this present regime. There has been a proliferation of violent, vulgar and explicit material which is now being widely sold throughout New South Wales at unrestricted locations, such as service stations, stores, and weekend markets, where children can browse this material. That is going on at the moment and nothing that has been said in this House during this debate in any way begins to change that situation. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I have called for the State Government to set up a new vice squad. 

Ms LEE RHIANNON: A new vice squad would likely end up corrupt, like previous vice squads. Specialised squads are open to the corruption that goes with the industry. We have had that experience. This bill would effectively clean up the industry, and the Government would be wise to act on it. If the Government will not accept Mr Breen's bill, it should wait a few months and introduce it itself. 

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.30 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment ( X 18+ Films) Bill, which proposes to remove the current prohibition on the sale and public exhibition in New South Wales of films that are classified X 18+ under Commonwealth legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. It seeks to ensure that films classified X 18+ are sold only from restricted publications areas and that the penalties for allowing minors to access adult material are increased. The bill arises because of the concerns of the Hon Peter Breen that the current prohibitions on the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ rated and refused classification [RC] films are not being enforced in New South Wales. 

The bill seeks to address the availability of X-rated material for sale in New South Wales under the counter in various adult stores and from other businesses, such as service stations and video stores. The bill seeks to overcome this problem by allowing restricted sale from adult shops of X-rated material to people over 18. It would not change the law for sexually violent or demeaning material, which would remain illegal. I commence by pointing out a fatal flaw in this bill. It proposes to make it legal to sell and publicly exhibit X 18+ rated films without any visible mechanisms for increasing the level of enforcement of the classification laws. The purported justification for the bill is the availability of X 18+ rated and RC films, often in pirated form, in adult shops in New South Wales. Merely making the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ rated films legal in New South Wales will not solve the problems concerning RC and pirated or illegally labelled films being made available for sale. This is especially so if there is not a co-ordinated response at a national level to these issues. 

The scheme for classification of films, publications and computer games in New South Wales is part of a national, co-operative scheme that has been in operation for almost 10 years, with the support of all Australian jurisdictions. The scheme comprises a Commonwealth Act, the Classification (Films, Publications and Computer Games) Act 1995, which establishes the classification authorities, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the Classification Board and the Review Board, and sets out the Classification Code. All State and Territory jurisdictions have enacted enforcement legislation that sets out offence provisions enforcing classification decisions made under the Commonwealth Act. In New South Wales this is the Classification (Films, Publications and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995. Enforcement legislation is essentially similar in each jurisdiction. 

All States, but not the Territories, currently prohibit the sale and public exhibition of X-rated films. Amending New South Wales enforcement legislation to allow the sale and public exhibition of X-rated films, without giving due consideration to the situation in other States, runs counter to the nature of the national co-operative scheme and would transmogrify its operation. The availability of X-rated and RC-rated films is an ongoing issue being considered by State, Commonwealth and Territory censorship ministers. The forum for this is the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which provides a venue for ongoing consideration of the enforcement issues raised by the Hon. Peter Breen, ensuring a consistent national response to his concerns. 

As I have mentioned, the system of classification is governed by a Commonwealth-State censorship agreement. No other State allows the sale of X-rated material, and this bill would result in New South Wales being out of step with the States and the Commonwealth. In view of the technical deficiencies in the bill, and given that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has not concluded its consideration of this issue on a national basis, the Government does not support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN [3.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this controversial bill. I was particularly disappointed at the attitude of the Government. Following the presentation of the film Baise Moi the Premier said:

I don't like the idea of adults being told what they can see and what they can read. I don't like the idea of State police going into cinemas seizing films. 

The Premier effectively introduced a policy of allowing people to watch what they like, so far as X-rated videos and DVDs are concerned. This policy is completely hypocritical. The law as it stands is being ignored, as a number of honourable members pointed out. The Hon. David Clarke made a comparison between the enforcement of these laws and those relating to prostitution and illegal casinos. I think they are legitimate comparisons, on one level. The Premier's attitude to this matter—that is, of allowing the industry to operate unregulated—is so hypocritical that it really defies description as to how one should deal with it. Five million videos, both X-rated and refused classification, are sold in New South Wales every year. Of those five million videos, three million are illegal. It is either X-rated material or, by and large, material that has not been classified.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: How can you prove that there are five million? 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I can prove that. I asked some of the people in the industry to provide me with verification of those figures. I regret that they have not done so. However, they have assured me orally that they know, because of the number of legal videos that are circulated and sold through the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, compared with how many are produced by the wholesalers. They calculate from the distribution of that material how many are sold and then they make a comparison with those of them that are legal. For example, by examining an X-rated video bearing a classification and number from the Office of Film and Literature Classification one could determine whether or not the video was legal. 

I am assured that about two million of those videos are sold in New South Wales each year, and when one takes into account the number of adult shops and video outlets that sell these videos it is not difficult to imagine that two million of them are sold legally. But there are another three million videos, based on the wholesalers' figures, that are sold illegally. Because the sale of this material is unregulated, people are able to watch material that is totally beyond the pale; material that would never be given a classification under the X-rated video definition, which is a very narrow definition. This material has been referred to as "erotic videos and DVDs", but, really, it depicts sex that is not in any way contaminated, if you like, by violence. Any material that depicted such violence would not receive an X-rated classification. In fact the X-rated classification is much more restrictive so far as violence is concerned than the R-rated classification. 

Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about the screening of a film in the Parliament by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I acknowledge the comment by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes that he was not responsible for having sponsored the screening of that film. Nonetheless, a photograph of him appeared on the invitation, together with a photograph of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I acknowledge also, however, that administrative matters sometime mean that such things can slip under the radar. 

The presentation was made by Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby. The reality is that the screening of such a film, Anatomy of Hell , in a public place, without approval from the sensor, is legal. However, the whole film must be depicted. The censorship classification applies to the whole film, from beginning to end. If you want to broadcast or show an excerpt from the film, you must obtain a separate classification because obviously that excerpt may be taken out of context. When I explained that to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and I asked a question about it, Mr Wallace accused me of being deceitful and dishonest. But I would like to assure him that I was simply pointing out the law. If there is any deceit and dishonesty in this debate, in my view it belongs with the Australian Christian Lobby. 

Although the film Anatomy of Hell is R-rated, it contains some of the most appalling sexualised violence one could ever imagine. Mr Wallace attempted to distribute a document headed " Australian Christian Lobby" that provided an explanation of the film Anatomy of Hell . The document had a cross on it and a representation that looked a little like that of the Federal Parliament. It read: 

At 27 minutes a pre-pubescent girl removes her pants and lies in bushes. A medium-distance shot of her naked from the torso down is shown. It cuts to a young boy who implicitly places the arm of a pair of spectacles in her vagina … 

At 33 minutes a man draws with lipstick around the anus and vagina of a sleeping woman. He then proceeds to have sex with her. 

In my view, that kind of film is much more appalling than an X-rated film because it depicts violence. The document continued: 

At 46 minutes the man places the handle of a pitchfork in the vagina of a woman and balances it so that the implement remains suspended in the air.

Such a film is legal; it is allowed under the R-rated 18+ classification.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It shouldn't be. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I agree, it should not be. But I say to Jim Wallace, and anybody else who says that X-rated videos are appalling, that they are damaging to women, that they are dangerous to the community, that they represent a threat to children, and so on: there is no violence in X-rated videos; it is specifically excluded from such material. If we ignore the fact that X-rated videos include footage of genitals, everything else about X-rated videos is far less damaging than anything one might see in the film Anatomy of Hell . 

Twenty years ago it was legal to have X-rated films; there was no distinction between the X-rated classification and the R-rated classifications. I note that today's Sydney Morning Herald published a list of the new classification symbols for X and R. Interestingly, they are both black. The representations are very similar: one is R18+ and the other is X18+. The distinction between the two is quite artificial. All my bill seeks to do is allow the law in New South Wales to operate and be policed in the same way as the law operates and is policed in the Australian Capital Territory [ACT]. A number of members referred to the ACT. The law in the ACT operates in a very restricted environment. The censor in the ACT, and those in charge of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, say that there is no evidence of any illegal or criminal activity in the ACT. 

The Hon. Greg Donnelly made a thoughtful contribution to the debate. He has obviously researched the matter and I compliment him on his contribution. However, I wish to correct the record in relation to one matter. The honourable member quoted extensively from the Flood report. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes also referred to that report in his contribution. On 24 May Michael Flood, the author of the report, wrote a letter addressed "To Whom It May Concern" in the following terms: 

I am writing in relation to the debate taking place in the New South Wales Parliament regarding a Private Member's Bill to legalise the sale of X18+ material in New South Wales. 

I am the co-author of two reports on pornography on which Dr Gordon Moyes draws in arguing against the introduction of this Bill. I wish to draw your attention to three points: 

1. I would support the introduction of this Bill. 

2. Our reports support the existing system for classifying X-rated material. 

3. Our reports argue for an extension of this system to the internet. 

The bill does not deal with the Internet. It simply deals with the suggestion that the law as it applies in the ACT and the Northern Territory ought to be the same law— 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Will you table that letter so we can verify its authenticity? 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Yes, I am very happy to table the letter. The document makes a number of observations about the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. It makes the point I made: that there is no violence in X-rated videos which means that for many people an X-rated video is much less offensive than an R-rated video. I could not watch Baise Moi ; it was so sexually violent. Yet I would have no difficulty watching an X-rated video because personally I do not find such material offensive. I acknowledge that a number of people find X-rated videos offensive, but in my view sex and violence together, which is what we are talking about in R-rated videos, is much more damaging and offensive than straight-out sexual erotica. I seek leave to table the letter from Michael Flood dated 24 May. 

Leave granted. 

Document tabled. 

The campaign that occurred 20 years ago to declare X-rated videos illegal was an emotional campaign. As the Hon. David Clarke pointed out, the campaign succeeded in pulling on the heart strings of the then Premier, Mr Wran, and as a result X-rated material was excluded in New South Wales and other States. The object was to prevent X-rated material getting into the hands of young people, families, and so on, and I agree with that object. But the object has not been achieved. In George Street, Darlinghurst, or in Kings Cross, both X-rated and non-classified material—I am talking about thousands and thousands of items—is freely sold and available. As Ms Lee Rhiannon pointed out, to have such a thriving industry operating without restrictions simply brings the law and the system into disrepute. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We agree. We want the law enforced. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: But the problem is that if the law were enforced as it operates in New South Wales now, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that these people sell the material without being policed. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They can be charged by the police. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: But the problem is that the Premier's attitude is that people should be able to watch what they like. The system should operate as that which is in place in the ACT, that is, a licensing regime whereby people who wished to sell the material pay a licence fee, and inspectors—such as local government inspectors—make a check of what is being sold to ensure that each video sold caries a classification number from the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The system is very strictly policed in the ACT. You cannot buy anything in the ACT or the Northern Territory that would hold a candle to some of the material that is available in George Street, Oxford Street or Darlinghurst Road. 

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The police should be there and having a look. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: But police are in a difficult position. In the absence of an organisation like the Vice Squad, which specialises in such matters and has the necessary knowledge to enforce the law, ordinary police officers do not know what material is classified and what is not. Recently, with a person who censors X-rated films, I went into a video shop in Darlinghurst Road and talked to the proprietor of that shop about the fact that he was selling illegal material. His attitude was, "I am a citizen of the Commonwealth. This stuff has a Commonwealth classification. Why shouldn't I be able to sell it? What's the problem?" I do not know whether he was being disingenuous or whether he really believed that he was entitled to sell it, but the fact is that that was his thinking. If he were to be prosecuted and he were to raise that matter as a defence, I suggest it would be a good defence to argue and it would be difficult to prove that he had the intention of breaking the law. 

All I am suggesting is that the present regime is not working and that my bill seeks to introduce a level of regulation that would enable the system to work. It is no more sinister than that. I am not particularly offended by X-rated material. As I said, I am much more offended by R-rated material because of the violence element in R-rated material. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, in my opinion, with the depiction of people having sex with each other. I may stand corrected by a number of people about that, and I concede that I could be wrong about it, but for me, personally, it is not offensive. And I suspect that the majority of the population, particularly given the number of sales of such videos and DVDs, think, like I do, that such material is not offensive. Indeed, just on a straw poll of my own family, all the members of my family find material involving violence—that is, R-rated, legal material— much more offensive and much more degrading, particularly to women. 

I simply say that there are inconsistencies in the way the law and the classifications operate, and those inconsistencies are translated into a regime that operates illegally, without any kind of government control or intervention. Such a flagrant breach of the law in New South Wales reminds me of the old days of illegal casinos and illegal brothels. It provides an environment for corruption, for organised crime, and it brings into disrepute the enforcement of the law. 

I urge honourable members to give consideration to this bill and to consider whether or not the present regime is satisfactory. I hope that members would draw the conclusion that the present regime is not satisfactory, that it ought to change, and that this bill is a step in the right direction to make sure that the system is enforced and operates in the way it was intended. I urge members to support the bill.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put. 

The House divided.

Ayes, 5
Mr Peter Breen (Independent)
Ms Sylvia Hale (Greens)
Ms Lee Rhiannon (Greens)

Tellers, 
Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats)
Mr Ian Cohen (Greens)

Noes, 32
Ms Janice Burnswoods (Labor)
Mr Antonio Catanzariti (Labor)
Mr David Clarke (Liberal)
Mr Richard Colless (Nationals)
Mr Michael Costa (Labor)
Ms Catherine Cusack (Liberal)
Mr John Della Bosca (Labor)
Mr Greg Donnelly (Labor)
Mrs Patricia Forsythe (Liberal)
Mr Michael Gallacher (Liberal)
Miss Jennifer Gardiner (Nationals)
Mr Duncan Gay (National)
Ms Kayee Griffin (Labor)
Mr John Hatzistergos (Labor)
Mr Tony Kelly (Labor)
Mr Charlie Lynn (Liberal)
Mr Ian Macdonald (Labor)
Reverend Dr Gordon Moyes (Christian Democratic Party)
Reverend Fred Nile (Christian Democratic Party)
Mr Eddie Obeid (Labor)
Mr David Oldfield (Independent)
Ms Robyn Parker (Liberal)
Mrs Melinda Pavey (Nationals)
Mr Gregory Pearce (Liberal)
Ms Christine Robertson (Labor)
Mr John Ryan (Liberal)
Ms Carmel Tebbutt (Labor)
Mr John Tingle (Shooters Party)
Mr Henry Tsang (Labor)
Mr Ian West (Labor)

Tellers,
Mr Donald Harwin (Liberal)
Mr Peter Primrose (Labor)

Question resolved in the negative.
 
Motion negatived. 

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. 

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Proof, NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 7 June 2005, Pages 4 - (article 14)

Calvista have censored three of their titles in order to gain X18+ ratings. The following were initially rated RC, but have now been passed.

A fourth title, BELLADONNA'S FUCKING GIRLS, was also banned at the same time. It has now been passed, though unlike the others, this second submission is described as the "Original Version" (same as the first submission) and not a "Revised Version" (cut).

******

Once again Australia gets hit with censored films from other countries. Thanks to the detective work of Rod Williams, it is now confirmed that the local DVD releases of SAW and TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE are cut U.S. R rated versions. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the OFLC, and is entirely the fault of the local distributors. If you want better then don't support them.

******

Just released, and worthy of your attention is BANNED: Tales from the bizarre history of Australian obscenity by James Cockington. It's an interesting look into the history of Australian wowserism. A time that the Religious Right would like to see return. More details, and ordering information can be found at ABC Books.

An entertaining and offbeat look at the history of Australian obscenity and doomed attempts to maintain public decency.

Banned takes us on an unexpurgated journey through the ebb and flow of Australian obscenity. Throughout the last century and a half, society in general reacted against what it deemed lewd or disgusting in literature, film, art, TV and personal behaviour.

Numerous assorted works, objects and events from the novels of D. H. Lawrence to the sight of a man’s exposed nipples have, at some stage, been officially considered unfit for public consumption.

James Cockington takes a fearless look at events both well known (the Eugene Goosens scandal) and more obscure (police raids on ‘immoral’ pyjama parties in Surfer’s Paradise in the 1950s) to discover the frequently absurd attitudes that underpin notions of decency and morality. It is a tale told with wit and dry good humour, enriched by photos and images of the weird ways of wowserism.

Happier with the skin we're in. The Age 05.06.05

Includes comments from the author James Cockington.

"What interested me (about writing Banned) was that by tracking the various things that had been banned in Australia over the last century and a bit, you can actually create a kind of moral geography," he says.

"I noticed that the more you tell people not to do something, the more they want to do it. The act of censorship works in reverse . . . if you don't object, people get sick of it and move on or set their own standards.

******

The widespread availability of unrated sex videos in Sydney has been the subject of debate in the NSW parliament over the past few months. David Oldfiled (Pauline Hanson's former puppet master) asked the following questions of the Labor Govenment.

The Hon. David Ernest OLDFIELD,MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Independent

The Hon. John HATZISTERGOS, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Minister for Justice
Minister for Fair Trading
Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce
Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship 
Member of Australian Labor Party

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
X-RATED DVDS AND VIDEOS
Page: 14166

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that Sydney sex shops are blatantly flouting the law by selling pornographic X-rated videos and DVDs? Is the Minister aware that such illegal activity is rife and that some of the shops have thousands of illegal videos and DVDs openly displayed on their shelves? Would the Minister be surprised to learn that the majority of these DVDs appear not to have been classified and, hence, would not even be legal in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory? Would the Minister be surprised to learn that many of the DVDs are pirated copies containing violent and deviant acts that would preclude them from being legal anywhere in Australia? Given that many of the films on sale are of a deviant kind that not even the Territories would allow, will the Minister undertake to cleanse New South Wales of such material? 

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware of a lot of the things the Hon. David Oldfield raised in his question but I am intrigued that he knew so much about it. I understand that the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for the classification of DVDs and movies. States and Territories are responsible for the prosecution of offences relating to certain materials, but the Commonwealth classification legislation does not assist the police as the Commonwealth does not sufficiently resource its system. For instance, police investigating the sale of DVDs that might be X-rated or unclassified have to apply in writing to the Office of Film and Literature Classification to have that office watch the DVD and decide whether it is X-rated or unclassifiable. This is cumbersome. In addition, the Office of Film and Literature Classification charges for this service. I am sure the Minister for Police would be happy to represent the Hon. David Oldfield's concerns to the Commonwealth, and I am happy to seek a response from the Minister for Police in that regard. 
 
NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 24 February 2005, Pages 12 - (article 11)

***

On 24 February 2005 the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice regarding X-rated DVDs and videos. The Minister for Police provided the following response: I note the advice given by the Minister for Justice in response to this question. I have written to the Commonwealth in regard to the problems experienced by New South Wales on this issue and will relay the Commonwealth's response when it arrive.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 5 April 2005, Pages 29 - (article 39)

***

Peter Breen is an Independent MLC in NSW. He has introduced a Private Members Bill that would see the X18+ rating legalised. 

Peter Breen
PRESS RELEASE 
24 February 2005

Classification Bill To Reduce Illegal Pornography in N.S.W.

Anti-porn crusaders of the 1980s saved us from a house cat so we could be eaten by a tiger

'Under the watch of the Carr Labor Government, Sydney has become the porn capital of Australia. Three million illegal videos and DVDs are now sold in New South Wales every year and the main purpose of my bill is to get rid of this black market and the corruption and exploitation it necessarily involves' said Upper House MP Peter Breen today in the second read of his Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill 2005.

'It has been reported that over $200 million every year is channelled back to terror groups and organised crime gangs in South-East Asia as a result of the sale of illegal pornographic DVDs and videos in Australia' Mr Breen continued.

'The booming black market in DVDs and videos is a direct result of the decision taken 20 years ago to ban X-rated material. The decision was based on a campaign of deception and misinformation spread by the anti-porn crusaders. These crusaders deliberately blurred the line between video nasties (child pornography, rape, mutilation, fetishes) and X-rated material.'

The present law relating to the sale and public exhibition of X-rated DVDs and videos is widely disregarded by the community and its Police Service. This is particularly damaging because it means people sell and watch material that is far more degrading and demeaning than anything that is likely to appear under the X18+ classification.

'They saved us from a house cat so that we could be eaten by a tiger' Mr Breen commented today.

Mr Breen's private member's bill seeks to legalise the same X-rated material that was legally available 20 years ago. The Commonwealth's guidelines for X classification prohibits any depiction of violence, sexual violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language, depictions that demean any person, fetishes and depictions of non-adult persons by children under 18 years or adult persons who look like they are under 18 years.

This Bill will also ensure that films classified X18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas and will increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material.

The industry is now so bold that pirated videos and DVD s do not even bother with forged classifications since nobody is policing the industry.

Mr Breen also commented on the conflict within the Crimes Act that the Government rushed through the Houses before Christmas. 'New Section 91H refers to any offensive material that depicts a person under the age of 16 years engaged in sexual activity or a person so engaged who appears to be under the age of 16 years. In contrast Section 91C of the Crimes Act defines a child as a person who is under the age of 18 years. Whether the conflict turns out to be a serious problem for Operation Auxin is something I can only speculate about.'

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT PETER BREEN ON 9230 2883 OR 0419 985 145

***

Currently it illegal to sell or hire X18+ films in NSW, as it is in all other States. It it however legal to purchase such films from the ACT and NT for your own personal use. 

The fact that the sale/hire of hardcore films is illegal in NSW may come as a surprise to anyone who has visited an Adult Shop in Sydney. These stores more or less regulate themselves, that is, just about everything is available apart from Child Pornography. 

A consequence of Peter Breen's Bill, providing that it is properly enforced, may be a reduction in choice available to the consumer. In the ACT and NT Adult Stores are closely monitored, and only OFLC approved product is sold.  

As to be expected, failed Federal Senator F*** Nile has been vocal in speaking against the bill. It was Nile who was instrumental in persuading Neville Wran to outlaw X18+ videos back in 1985.

The bill is currently having its second reading. Now would be a good time to contact your State Member and get your opinions across. 

A few corrections/comments are needed to some of the statements.

Peter Breens claims:

I mentioned the film Baise-Moi and the furore it caused when the censors first banned it and then changed their minds. What actually happened was that the Office of Film and Literature Classification banned the film and that decision was overturned by the Classification Review Board. 

This is incorrect. It was in fact passed by the Classification Board, then overturned and banned by the Classification Review Board.

He goes on to say:

I will not be surprised to see the arguments being rerun, because another film that is currently before the censor called Nine Songs , like Baise-Moi , contains sexualised violence— 

Followed by:

I know nothing about the film Nine Songs except that there is almost certain to be sexualised violence, exploitation of teenagers and some kind of sexual fetish.

Indeed Mr Breen, you know nothing about 9 SONGS. It contains no violence at all, sexual or otherwise. If it did it would not have been originally awarded an X18+ rating by the Classification Board.

It's worth highlighting Peter Breen's comment concerning F*** Nile's legendary porn collection.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I again have to defer to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on these matters. Someone told me that he has his own private collection of these things. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, that is a lie. 

Nile again attempts to link pornography with organised crime.

What has been allowed to happen shows that organised crime has been involved and, on the evidence I have seen, is still involved in this X-rated video business, particularly on the production side. X-rated videos are not produced by the boy scouts or the Baptist Church; they are produced by criminals. 

Boy scouts, the Baptist Church, X-Rated videos, all in one sentence. I'll leave it at that. On with the debate.

***

The speakers involved are:

The Hon. Peter James BREEN, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Independent

Reverend the Hon. (Fred) Frederick John NILE, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Temporary Chair of Committees 
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Keith Mackenzie MOYES, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Member of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

The Hon. John HATZISTERGOS, MLC 
Current Member of the Legislative Council 
Minister for Justice
Minister for Fair Trading
Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce
Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship 
Member of Australian Labor Party

***

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill 2005 

Private Member's Bill 

See Digest 3 of 2005, dated 18/03/2005 for an examination of this Bill by the Legislation Review Committee. 

Long Title An Act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 to remove the prohibition on the sale of films classified "X 18+"; to ensure that films classified "X 18+" are only sold from restricted publications area; to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material; and for other purposes.

Explanatory Notes Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill 2005 Explanatory note This explanatory note relates to this Bill as introduced into Parliament.

Overview of Bill 

The object of this Bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995: 

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and 

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and 

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material.

Outline of provisions 

Clause 1 sets out the name (also called the short title) of the proposed Act. 

Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act 30 days after the date of assent or the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Act 2004 of the Commonwealth, whichever is the later. 

Clause 3 is a formal provision that gives effect to the amendments to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 set out in Schedule 1. 

Clause 4 amends the Crimes Act 1900. Schedule 1 Amendment of Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 

Schedule 1 [1] removes the prohibition under section 6 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (the Principal Act) on selling or publicly exhibiting a film classified X 18+. 

Schedule 1 [2] and [16] make consequential amendments. 

Schedule 1 [2], [5], [8]–[10], [12] and [17] amend provisions of the Principal Act to increase the penalties for offences relating to allowing minors to access adult material. 

Schedule 1 [3] inserts proposed section 6A into the Principal Act. The proposed section creates certain offences in relation to the display, sale, delivery and publication of films classified X 18+. 

Schedule 1 [6] amends section 9 of the Principal Act to create an offence of selling or delivering to a minor a film classified X 18+, or an unclassified film that would, if classified, be classified X 18+. 

Schedule 1 [4] and [7] make consequential amendments. 

Schedule 1 [13] amends section 14 of the Principal Act to create an offence for privately exhibiting in the presence of a minor a film classified X 18+ or an unclassified film that would, if classified, be classified X 18+. 

Schedule 1 [11] makes a consequential amendment. Section 16 of the Principal Act provides that it is an offence to keep a film classified RC or X 18+ on any premises where classified films are sold. 

Schedule 1 [14] amends section 16 to provide that it is a defence to a prosecution for the offence of keeping a film classified X 18+ on such premises if the film was kept in a restricted publications area. 

Schedule 1 [15] amends section 17 of the Principal Act to provide that it is an offence for a person to leave in a public place or, without the occupier’s permission, on private premises, a film classified RC, X 18+, R 18+ or MA 15+ or an unclassified film that would, if classified, be classified in one of those categories. 

Schedule 1 [18]–[21] make amendments to the Principal Act in relation to advertising films, publications and computer games classified X 18+.

 Schedule 1 [22] amends section 63 of the Principal Act to provide that proceedings can not be brought against any person for publishing an obscene libel or indecent article if the libel or article is, or is part of, a film, publication or computer game that is classified X 18+. 

 Note: If this Bill is not modified, these Explanatory Notes would reflect the Bill as passed in the House. If the Bill has been amended by Committee, these Explanatory Notes may not necessarily reflect the Bill as passed.

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL
Page: 14194 

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed. 

Second Reading 

The Hon. PETER BREEN [4.43 p.m.]: 

I move: That this bill be now read a second time. 

The major objective of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill is to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale and public exhibition of films that are classified X 18+ under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The effect of the bill is to legalise the sale and public exhibition of what were generally known 20 years ago as X-rated videos, but today are known as X 18+ videos. That includes, of course, DVDs, which we did not have 20 years ago. In other words, the main purpose of the bill is to turn back the clock 20 years to 1984 when it was perfectly legal to sell and watch X-rated videos in New South Wales. Furthermore, the bill seeks to ensure that films classified X 18+ are sold only from restricted publications areas and it seeks to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material. 

As I have pointed out to the House on other occasions, the citizens of New South Wales sell and watch X-rated videos and DVDs in vast numbers. This bill simply legalises that activity. Last night in this House the Hon. David Clarke gave a good speech in which he made the point that the right to freedom of religion includes the right to condemn other religions. According to the principle, those of us who believe Islam is a dumb religion and that the prophet Mohammed is the antichrist ought to have the right to say so; those of us who think the Jewish people are guilty of deicide and deserve every punishment they receive should not be restrained in what we say; and those of us who are convinced that Christianity is an elite and exploitative religion and that the founder of Opus Dei, Josemaria Escriva, is the patron saint off fascists should broadcast our convictions as widely as possible. 

The principle of unrestricted free speech runs up against other important principles, including the right to privacy and the right to reputation. Nevertheless, within the confines of religious expression the Hon. David Clarke would have us say as we please, and he would label such language as religious tolerance. He is entitled to his opinion, of course, and I admire the conviction with which he expounds it. I would ask, however, that the Hon. David Clarke and others with strong religious convictions extend to others the same tolerance they demand when the argument is about censorship in general and X-rated videos and DVDs in particular. There was nothing harmful or degenerate in X-rated material 20 years ago when it was legal, and nothing has changed with the passage of time, except that DVD and video retailers now sell whatever they please because their industry is not policed. The result is a proliferation of harmful and degenerate material in New South Wales on a scale that is unprecedented.

On the watch of the Carr Labor Government, Sydney has become the porn capital of Australia. Within two kilometres of Parliament House honourable members can purchase every conceivable depravity on video or DVD, and the purchase is both inexpensive and legal—with one minor exception. I refer to pornographic DVDs and videos depicting children under 18 years of age or depicting adults as if they were children under 18 years of age. Late last year, in the usual rush to legislate before Christmas, this House passed the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Act. The legislation replaced the definition of " child pornography" as it appeared in section 91G of the Crimes Act with a new definition that is impossible to understand because it appears to be in conflict with other provisions in the Crimes Act. 

Briefly, "child pornography" in the new section 91H means any offensive material that depicts a person under the age of 16 years engaged in sexual activity or a person so engaged who appears to be under the age of 16 years. However, section 91C of the Crimes Act defines a "child" as a person who is under the age of 18 years. Whether the conflict turns out to be a serious problem for Operation Auxin is something I can only speculate about, although I remind the House that the Government would not allow crossbench and Opposition members access to the Crown Solicitor's advice on the issue when it was before the House. The Government claimed that the advice related to the administration of justice, a spurious claim in the circumstances and one that may come back to haunt the Government. I raised this question about the new definition of "child pornography" because honourable members may recall that late last year I presented to the House a number of videos that I had purchased from retail outlets in George Street and in Darlinghurst. These videos were illegal. In fact, in the five shops that I inspected to purchase the videos I could not find one legal video—in other words, one video that was X-rated and had a classification number on it. 

All these stores are packed to the rafters with illegal material and material that, in my opinion, is well beyond the pale. A couple of the videos I presented to the House on a previous occasion and which I attempted to table related to underage child sexual activity. At the time Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile kept interjecting on me, saying that the material was child pornography. I responded to his interjection by saying, "I think child pornography relates to prepubescent children." However, the new definition of "child pornography", which we legislated late last year in the usual rush before Christmas, is now clearly as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile suggested. It means that any film that portrays a child who is under the age of 16 years or appears to be under the age of 16 years is child pornography. If I were now to bring into the House the material that I brought into the House at that time, I could be charged with child pornography. 

Although it is illegal in New South Wales to purchase these DVDs and videos in these various illegal outlets, anyone who purchases a video that portrays a child of 16 years or what appears to be a child of 16 years can be charged and convicted of child pornography. This is a very serious matter. Not only did the Government pass legislation late last year to make the issue even more complicated, it has completely ignored these illegal outlets and will not police the law. In the old days the vice squad comprised good and professional people who knew what the law was and how to enforce it, but there is nobody in the police force today who has any specialised jurisdiction or qualifications to deal with this complex area of film classification and enforcement of laws in relation to X-rated videos and videos that are refused classification. The present law relating to the sale and public exhibition of X-rated DVDs and videos is widely disregarded by the community and its police service. A law that does not enjoy public support is a bad law because it brings the rule of law and the legal system into disrepute. 

Disregard for the law in relation to X-rated videos and DVDs is particularly damaging because it means that people sell and watch material that is far more degrading and demeaning than anything that is likely to appear under the X 18+ classification. Indeed, bestiality, child pornography, pain and faeces fetishes are all standard fare in the sex shops and second-hand bookshops that operate illegally but with apparent impunity in the lower end of George Street, in Darlinghurst, in Kings Cross and in the city of Sydney. A similar proliferation of retail outlets selling this material can be seen in most suburbs and towns throughout the State, with the additional problem in country areas that the material is also sold in newsagents, service stations, supermarkets, corner stores and so on. These outlets are not restricted premises, which means children have easy access to the material. Retailers who ignore the law concerning what they sell are unlikely to have scruples about who buys this illegal material.

 On the watch of the Carr Labor Government three million illegal videos and DVDs are sold in New South Wales every year. The main purpose of my bill is to get rid of this black market and the corruption and exploitation it necessarily involves. I also happen to know that the issue of illegal DVDs and videos has been to Labor caucus several times and the attitude of the Premier is that the party should let sleeping dogs lie. Although I agree with the Premier that these people who profit from the illegal sale of pornographic material are dogs, it is not true to say that they are sleeping. Organised crime has always operated in the sex industry because of various prohibitions, and the prohibitions involving pornographic videos and DVDs are now so lax that the crooks are working at a frenzied pace. According to an article in the Sunday Mail last year by Martin Wallace, every year more than $200 million is channelled back to terror groups and organised crime gangs in South-East Asia as a result of the sale of illegal pornographic DVDs and videos in Australia. In other words, the people of Australia are funding these terrorist organisations and crime gangs to the tune of $200 million every year solely from the proceeds of sale of illegal pornographic DVDs and videos. 

By properly regulating the industry a smart government could direct much of this illegal profit into consolidated revenue, as happens in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, which are both legal outlets under the Commonwealth legislation. They have officers who are engaged full time in policing the outlets to make sure that the only material that is sold is legal and is classified under the Commonwealth classification laws. I should mention that the booming black market in DVDs and videos is a direct result of the decision taken 20 years ago to ban X-rated material. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: A good decision. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile says it was a good decision. I would suggest that the decision was based on a campaign of deception and misinformation. I do not say that it was deliberate deception and deliberate misinformation because the people involved in the campaign were honourable, good people, but they did spread a number of inaccuracies and they deliberately blurred the line between X-rated material and other material, which was far more sinister, far more degrading and far more disgraceful by any definition. The people involved in the campaign to make X-rated videos illegal included Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Lance Shilton, Jim Cameron, Brian Harradine and, most famously, Mary Whitehouse, who was described in the July 1985 edition of the magazine Outrage as "the international queen of anti-pawn crusaders". Misinformation and deception were the undercurrent of the campaign. 

These so-called video nasties that I have described and that I have attempted to table include child pornography, violence including rape and mutilation, various fetishes, horrors, pain videos and even so-called snuff videos—all this material was lumped into the same basket and definition as "X- rated material". Clearly, all that other stuff could never be classified as X-rated material because "X-rated material" has a specific definition, which is reasonable and sensible, and has been in operation since the 1980s. In my view, the anti-porn crusaders have reaped a whirlwind from their campaign to the extent that the market for pornographic DVDs and videos is now overwhelmingly dominated by video nasties. Mary Whitehouse saved us from a house cat so we could be eaten by a tiger. The guidelines for film classification are listed in the Commonwealth's "Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003". The X classification prohibits any depiction of violence—there is no violence in X-rated videos—no physical or sexual violence, no sexualised violence and no coercion. The X classification is restrictive and only allows consenting erotica. Sexually assaultive language is banned, as are depictions that purposely demean anyone involved in sexual activity.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It includes bondage in the videos. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Fetishes are not permitted, as I understand it. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Bondage is. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I would have to defer to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on the issue of bondage. I am not even sure that I know what bondage is. Body piercing and the application of substances such as candle wax are certainly precluded. Golden showers and spanking are precluded. With great respect to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile— 

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We could be real terrors and ask you to define these for us. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I would have to bring in the videos. Honourable members would have to allow me to table the videos if they want them defined.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: All of that material is unclassified and banned. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is right, but he deliberately confused unclassified and banned material with X-rated material. That is how the honourable member's campaign ran, which is why it was so successful. The honourable member deliberately blurred the line between X-rated material and all other excluded material. With great respect to the honourable member, bondage is excluded from the X-rated category. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I've seen labels for bondage. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: They are mislabelled. The Commonwealth definition specifically states that fetishes, such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, golden showers, bondage, spanking and fisting, are not permitted. So anything like that is excluded. The definition of "X-rated" is narrow, and includes erotica and consenting adults. All the other stuff that the honourable member deliberately blurred in the line is now overwhelming the market, and that is why I say that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has reaped the whirlwind.

[ Interruption ] 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has reaped the whirlwind as a result of his campaign. He won the campaign and lost the war. Some three million illegal videos are sold in New South Wales every year, and they are disgraceful. The problem is that the people of New South Wales are selling and buying them without fear of prosecution. 

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. 

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 24 February 2005, Pages 44 - (article 30)

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL
Page: 14553

Second Reading 

Debate resumed from 24 February. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN [11.16 a.m.]: When this bill was last debated in this House I said that people in New South Wales are selling and buying illegal pornographic material on such a scale that the market for unclassified material in New South Wales is now completely unregulated. I recall that when the film, Baise-Moi, was originally banned by the film censor, Premier Carr was one of the outspoken critics of the decision. He said that people should be able to watch whatever they please. That reminded me of the Peter Sellers film Being There , and the famous line "I like to watch", which seems to have become the theme for film classification censorship in New South Wales. It seems to me that the Premier has achieved his desired outcome because the people of New South Wales watch whatever they please. The market in illegal DVDs and videos is open slather. One could not successfully prosecute for selling or buying illegal pornographic films in this State for love or money. 

I am reliably informed that everybody in New South Wales who has pleaded not guilty to a charge of selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic film in the past four years has been acquitted. In other words, not one successful prosecution has occurred in New South Wales over the past four years for selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic video or DVD. According to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, just 14 people have pleaded guilty to a charge of selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic film in the past four years, and the average fine has been approximately $300.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Shame! 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile says "shame", and I agree with him, particularly given the fact that the maximum penalty for selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic video or DVD is $11,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. In terms of a range of penalties, one would have to say that a fine of $300 is at the very bottom of the scale. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is almost decriminalisation. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It means that people can sell or publicly exhibit an illegal pornographic video or DVD with impunity. There is no attempt by the Government to enforce the law, so the law is brought into disrepute. If a corporation publicly exhibited or sold an illegal DVD or video, the fine under the legislation would be $ 27,500 whereas the average penalty imposed is $300. It is a disgrace. I mentioned the film Baise-Moi and the furore it caused when the censors first banned it and then changed their minds. What actually happened was that the Office of Film and Literature Classification banned the film and that decision was overturned by the Classification Review Board. The film depicts sexualised violence in the name of art. I was so appalled by the film that I had to leave the cinema. One would never find that level of sexualised violence in an X-rated video or DVD because the censor would not allow it. So it is quite incongruous that a film containing sexualised violence, in the name of art, is allowed to be publicly exhibited whereas material watched by people in their own home depicting erotic sex between consenting adults—no violence, no fetishes, no exploitation, no under-age people—is somehow illegal. I will not be surprised to see the arguments being rerun, because another film that is currently before the censor called Nine Songs , like Baise-Moi , contains sexualised violence— 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It has real sex. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I again have to defer to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on these matters. Someone told me that he has his own private collection of these things. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, that is a lie. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It is a good story. It is part of the urban mythology on the censorship of films and videos. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You can visit my home— 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: In fact, someone said to me yesterday that he has a wall of videos. If he has, I would really like to see it because I get very confused about how these films are classified. 

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: My Fair Lady and all those films. 

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I think that is on the same shelf as Debbie Does Dallas . I know nothing about the film Nine Songs except that there is almost certain to be sexualised violence, exploitation of teenagers and some kind of sexual fetish. That is the genre. That is how it works. That is what the art filmmakers include in order to promote their work. It may be artistic but the point I want to make is that these films are much worse, much further beyond the pale and much more damaging—certainly more demeaning—than X-rated films. The guidelines are very strict as to what can be shown in an X-rated film. I have explained them before. I will not explain them again, particularly with children in the gallery. 

The author Helen Vnuk wrote a very good book in 2003 about film classification and censorship in Australia. Published by Random House, the book is titled Snatched: Sex and Censorship in Australia . Writing about the book in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 July 2003, Helen Vnuk said that Premier Carr wants to lobby for changes to Federal legislation to allow banned films to be shown at film festivals. But on the subject of introducing legislation to permit the sale of X-rated videos and DVDs the Premier is notably silent. Not one X-rated DVD or video would hold a candle to the graphic depiction of nasty sex exhibited in the art films. Yet the Premier would prefer to leave sleeping dogs lie. As I said earlier in the debate, the people who exploit the Government's inaction by profiting from the black market in pornographic DVDs and videos may be dogs but they are not sleeping. 

I understand that approximately 10,000 pornographic videos were produced around the world last year, and about 600 of them were classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The remainder, approximately 94 per cent, do not go unsold but, rather, end up in retail shops with forged classifications on the covers, or indeed no classification. The industry is now so bold that no-one bothers to put a classification on the binder of pirated videos and DVDs since nobody is policing the industry. I will not terrify honourable members again by repeating the titles of the videos I attempted to table but I make the point that the material included under-age material. Since the laws were changed last year relating to child pornography I believe that material would qualify as child pornography. 

Most of the erotic and pornographic material sold in New South Wales each year has not been approved by the censor. The stringent guidelines of the Commonwealth are being ignored, and reasonable material is being sold alongside hardcore, offensive, violent and illegal films that do not comply with any guidelines or legislation. If films classified X 18+ by the censor were sold legally the policing of illegal pornography would be made much simpler. The existing law is adequate to enforce film classification legislation but only minimal or no action is taken and, as I said, the fines are minuscule. If it were legal to sell as well as buy legitimate X-rated videos in New South Wales that would enable more effective policing of the illegal industry. 

Movies that have received an X 18+ classification from the censor could then be sold legally in sex shops or adult shops and it would be illegal for them to be sold in video shops or the so-called adult bookshops that are so abundant about town. It would dramatically reduce market access for the illegal pornography. All that is required is a label classification on the jacket by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Any item that did not have an authentic label would be illegal to sell or buy from any outlet. It would be a very simple matter to police and would become a source of revenue for the State. 

The argument that legalising the sale of X18+ material will lead to a plethora of erotic material suddenly being made available in the State is flawed. The fact is that there is an overwhelming amount of illegal and highly offensive material currently being sold from a variety of unrestricted premises, with very little policing of the industry. The only way to reduce this black market is to make a clear distinction between what is legal and what is illegal, and in that way provide for greater enforcement than currently exists. Items [2], [5], [8] to [10], [12] and [17] of scheduled increase the penalties for offences relating to allowing minors access to the material and provide for up to two years imprisonment. 

Schedule 1 [3] ensures that the legal material must only be displayed in a restricted publications area, only delivered to a person who has made a direct request, and only published if the film displays the determined markings and classification number allocated to the film by the board. Schedule 1 [6] prohibits delivery to a minor and schedule 1 [13] prohibits privately exhibiting the material in the presence of a minor. The bill incorporates the amendments of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendments (Uniform Classification) Bill 2004 passed by the Parliament last year. I supported the amendments to the uniform classification bill because they were aimed at standardising the separate and inconsistent classification systems that exist among the Commonwealth and the States. 

The amendments in this bill have a similar purpose. Schedule 1 [1] removes the current prohibition on selling or publicly exhibiting a film classified X 18+. In New South Wales a sharp contradiction still exists in relation to X 18+ films: while it is illegal to sell an X 18+ film in this State, it is not illegal to buy one. Even though they have been the subject of a legal classification by the Commonwealth censor, the sale of these films warrants a penalty of approximately $11,000 or up to 12 months in gaol. In the case of corporations the penalty is $27,500. Under Commonwealth law, and in the Territories, it is legal to buy and sell material classified by the censor as X 18+. Schedule 1 [1] will bring New South Wales into line with Commonwealth law and, by enabling more efficient policing of the industry, will reduce the amount of illegal and highly offensive material currently being sold throughout the State. I commend the bill to the House. 

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose. 

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 3 March 2005, Pages 2 - (article 8)

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL 
Page: 15211 

Second Reading Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose. 

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 7 April 2005, Pages 5 - (article 9)

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL
Page: 15648

Second Reading 

Debate resumed from 3 March 2005. 

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [11.26 a.m.]: The objectives of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill are to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995. The mainstay of these amendments is to remove current bans in relation to the sale and public exhibition of X18+ films under the Commonwealth Act. The amendments also purport to ensure that films classified X18+ are sold only from restricted publication areas such as adult shops. Whilst the bill legalises X-rated films, it also increases penalties in relation to some offences. For example, fines are heightened for the sale and public exhibition of unclassified material, and individuals who allow minors access to adult material will face hefty sanctions under the bill. 

Members of this Chamber will have differing views about this bill. Some may feel that the bill, in its entirety, is a welcome initiative that ought to be embraced by this House and the New South Wales community as a whole. People residing in this camp ultimately base their viewpoint on the notion that once individuals become adults they should be able to see and hear whatever they desire. Others will have very strong views against some aspects of the bill, based on practical and moral considerations. I count myself as included in this camp, and I have no qualms about making my opinion known. 

At the outset, however, I would like to point out that I wholeheartedly share some of the concerns expressed by the Hon. Peter Breen. The honourable member hit the nail on the head in his contribution to the second reading debate when he indicated that the law relating to the sale and public exhibition of X-rated and other unsavoury material is not being enforced. He referred to research carried out by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which apparently shows that in the past four years just 14 people have pleaded guilty to a charge of selling or publicly exhibiting an illegal pornographic film, and that the average fine was approximately $300. 

Like the Hon. Peter Breen, I am concerned that the law is not being enforced. People are flouting the law because they know they can get away with it. There is no doubt that the lack of enforcement of the law relating to illegal pornographic material is a justification relied upon by many not to observe the existing law. Unless effective enforcement mechanisms are in place, and they are accompanied by a strong political will to rely on and follow through with these mechanisms, breaches of the law will abound. This phenomenon can currently be observed in practice. There can be no effective regulation without an effective sanction that is actively enforced. 

This argument might be illustrated by the predicament of the Bali nine as they face sanctions against them in the Bali prison. With all other things being equal, the severe and dire sanctions that are attracted if a person intends to import or export, or actually imports or exports, narcotics to or from Bali ought to be a deterrent to any reasonable person delving in such activity. The message that is sent out by the Balinese Government is closely observed by many. However, based upon expressed views, 

I am certain that in hindsight some of the Bali nine would have refrained from attempting to carry narcotics if they had known of the severe consequences that they were facing. Countries such as Bali and Singapore have laws in place in relation to the realm of drug trafficking that are followed through. It is easy to foresee that those countries that have less stringent laws, which are not enforced, will become targets for drug trafficking. There must be enforcement for the laws to be effective. I also concurred with the Hon. Peter Breen when he remarked in his second reading speech on the bill: 

In the old days, the Vice Squad comprised good and professional people who knew what the law was and how to enforce it, but there is nobody in the police force today who has any specialised jurisdiction or qualifications to deal with this complex area of film classification and enforcement of laws in relation to X-rated videos and videos that are refused classification. 

I cannot emphasise enough that the current state of affairs is due to the lack of will and lack of resources to enforce the law that is in place. Our police must be thoroughly acquainted with the law and how to enforce it. If there is a lack of specialisation in dealing with the X-rated and otherwise unsavoury material targeted by this bill, it goes without saying that the answer is not to eliminate the law in place, but to improve the mechanisms in place to deal with the enforcement of the law. The Hon. Peter Breen is advocating that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater; for good to be thrown out with the bad. 

The problem lies with the absence of effective enforcement, not with the merits of the law. If the police are ill-equipped to deal with the prevalence of illegal pornographic material, our focus ought to be to set up a part of the police force that is specifically designed to regulate and enforce sanctions against X-rated and other material. Our emphasis ought to be to stress the need for our police force to improve and follow through its strategies for the enforcement of the current law. It is anomalous to propose that the law should be done away with, not because of its merit per se, but because it is not being enforced. To lack enforcement is to create bad law. If one person is prosecuted to the full extent of the law it will send a clear message to others that it is not on to flout the law.

Another common ground that I share with the Hon. Peter Breen is the need for stricter penalties to be in place in respect of so-called unclassified material. The bill increases the legal sanctions for, among other things, the sale of unclassified material. The honourable member referred to the existence of bestiality, child pornography, and pain and faeces fetishes being all standard fare in the same-sex shops and second-hand bookshops that are operating illegally, but with apparent impunity, at the lower end of George Street and in Darlinghurst, in King's Cross and in the city of Sydney. Unlike the Hon. Peter Breen, I have not researched this fact and I take his word for it. In the spectrum of sexual material, this material has to be most morally repugnant and reprehensible if I am to believe his research. Clear messages must be sent out that trading and delving in this material is not on in our society. The Government ought to be doing all it can to deter people from selling, buying and distributing this kind of material. 

I support the increase in penalties in this context. Last year the Attorney General, Bob Debus, remarked in his second reading speech on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill 2004 that "by increasing the maximum penalties for child pornography offences, the Government is sending a clear message to the courts that such offences should not be tolerated". Now, that is true. A clear message is sent when penalties for offences are increased, but I must stress that it is futile to make changes to legislation that is just not being enforced, because if the proposed changes are put in place, it is more likely that they will not be enforced either. Suffice it to say that the strategy put forward by the Hon. Peter Breen to increase penalties for some offences in the hope that they will be enforced is flawed. What makes the honourable member believe that increasing penalties for some offences will bring about actual enforcement of these penalties? 

I concur that more stringent penalties are needed and that a stronger message must be sent out against the sale of unclassified material, but what makes the honourable member think that the law will then be enforced if it has not been enforced to date, and if he has admitted that that is because of lack of policing and political will? Even if penalties are increased for allowing minors to access adult material, what convinces the honourable member that these penalties will be enforced if the current legislation has not been enforced to date? 

Further, I strongly hold that there is no evidence that making penalties tougher for what are called the refused classification [RC] films will eliminate the black market in these films. The honourable member indicated in his second reading speech that the main purpose of his bill is to "get rid of this black market and the corruption and exploitation that it necessarily involves". Personally, I am not convinced that increasing penalties for refused classification films will result in the elimination of the black market in those films. 

Again, the issue lies in whether there is effective policing of the market. The current state of affairs indicates that sex shops and so-called adult bookstores are acting with impunity. What makes the honourable member believe that his changes to current penalties will bring about effective policing? That is a political decision. In my opinion, liberalising the sale of some pornographic material will not lead to retailers restricting the material that they sell if there are no effective sanctions in place that are being enforced. I cannot comprehend the argument that increasing penalties for hardcore, fundamentally depraved material will bring about a shrinking of the black market if enforcements by police are not effective.

Furthermore, a black market for refused classification material will always exist, because there will always be some individuals in our community that have a penchant for this nasty material. The existence of this material in our community is a reflection of the demands of some members of our community. Also, in my opinion, the lack of enforcement willpower will also ultimately lead to X-rated material being sold, not only in restricted publication areas, but in other areas. This is what currently happens and changing the law to increase penalties will accomplish nothing unless the law is effectively enforced. Rather than advocating changes to the law, we ought to start by ensuring that the current law is effectively enforced. I think that enforcement in this area is the core weakness at present. 

The honourable member noted in his second reading speech that if it were illegal to sell as well as buy legitimate X-rated videos in New South Wales, that would enable more effective policing of the illegal industry. I do not think that argument is logical. I have reiterated time and again that unless the illegal industry is currently policed effectively, there is no indication that legalising X-rated material will ensure enforcement of the law into the illegal industry. Why would effective policing instantaneously take place on the introduction of the Breen amendments if enforcement of the current law is not happening right now? Interestingly, the honourable member argued the following in his second reading speech: 

I understand that approximately 10,000 pornographic videos were produced around the world last year, and about 600 of them were classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The remainder, approximately 94 per cent, do not go unsold but, rather, end up in retail shops with forged classifications on the covers, or indeed no classification. 

This means that unclassified material consists of 94 per cent of the material on the market. I am not sure why the honourable member believes that tackling the miniscule 6 per cent of the market will lead to reducing the plethora of unclassified material on the market. The argument has already been made that if X18+ classified material could be sold legally in sex shops or adult shops, that is, in restricted access venues, then sale of this material could be made illegal in video shops or so-called adult book stores that are so abundant about town. 

It supposedly follows that the sale of X18+ material legal would dramatically reduce market access for illegal pornography. I do not believe that this argument holds. Though there are no statistics kept on the incidence of illegal pornography in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory [ ACT], there is no doubt that these territories are still affected by the prevalence of illegal material. 

Second, restricting the sale of such material to adult shops will not deter retailers from stocking and selling this material if the laws against stocking and selling this material are not enforced. Also, the Hon. Peter Breen has argued that one would be able to differentiate between classified and non-classified material by simply viewing whether a label classification on the jacket of the material is endorsed by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. He has indicated that any item that does not have an authentic label would be easy to spot and would be illegal to sell or to buy from any outlet. However, this is a non-argument because the label classifications already exist but are forged by those wanting to represent an otherwise unclassified film as classified. 

The ACT and the Northern Territory have laws in place that allow for the sale and public exhibition, in certain circumstances, of X-rated material. The Hon. Peter Breen argues that New South Wales ought to be in step with these territories as if these territories are illuminating the path for the rest of Australia. I remind members that the most recent Australian demographics statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that only 1.6 per cent of Australia's population live in the ACT and that the Northern Territory's population is 1 per cent of Australia's total population. I am not convinced that New South Wales, the State with Australia’s largest population, being one-third of Australia's population, would follow the steps taken by these two other territories. 

I think that the honourable member is looking for ways to justify his position, and what better way to justify his position than to look at two of the less conservative entities for guidance: the smallest, the ACT, and the Northern Territory. But what about the status quo that has been held across all Australian States? Does that not count for anything in this argument? I ask this rhetorical question because everybody knows the answer to it. 

Given the nature of the debate and my position as a Christian leader in the community with a charge to represent the Christian voice of this State, I cannot leave this debate without putting on the record arguments against the sale and use of X18+ rated and other unclassified material. Many are familiar with the arguments against the sale and use of such material. In processing my arguments, however, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the findings of the United States Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. 

The commission was set up in the 1980s to review the available empirical evidence on the relationship between exposure to pornographic material and antisocial behaviour. The commission concluded that there is a causal relationship between the exposure to many forms of pornography and several antisocial effects, including increased levels of violence against women. As a result of these findings, the commission called for a more strict enforcement of existing obscenity laws. In the same vein we would also call for a more strict enforcement of the current pornographic laws.

Further, the Australia Institute, a broadly regarded and reputable think tank on social issues, prepared a report on Regulating Youth Access to Pornography, which was discussion paper No. 53 of 2003. Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton, who drafted the report, stated: 

The research literature's documentation of significant associations between use of certain types of pornography and sexual aggression provides grounds for real concern. Apart from the intrinsically disturbing nature of much Internet pornography, regular consumption of pornography and particularly violent and extreme pornography, is a risk for boys' and young men's perpetration of sexual assault. 

In another article authored by Flood and Hamilton, entitled "Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the extent of exposure and likely effects", the authors concluded that: 

… a wide range of studies has been conducted among young people aged 18 to 25. One of the most important areas of social concern has been the impact of pornography on men's sexual behaviour towards women, and particularly male sexual aggression or rape. One major study integrated the findings of a broad range of research and concluded that there is consistent and reliable evidence that exposure to or consumption of pornography is related to male sexual aggression against women. This association is strongest for violent pornography and still reliable for non-violent pornography, particularly when used frequently. 

In experimental studies, adults show significant strengthening of attitudes supportive of sexual aggression following exposure to pornography.

Members will remember Marlene Goldsmith, a former Chairman of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, who explored the topic of whether there is a causal connection between sexual offenders and pornography. There is an abundance of evidence both for and against the argument that there is a causal connection between pornography and sexual violence. There are some quotes from that report that I would like to incorporate into my speech.

Leave granted. ______ "in NSW, in the period 1975-91, a time during which pornography has become increasingly available, there has been a 90.6 per cent increase in the level of rape (Categories 1-3 Sexual Assault) (NSW Bureau of Crimes Statistics and Research 1991)… A Michigan state policy study found that pornography was viewed just before or during 41 per cent of 38,000 sexual crimes committed over twenty years". 

In response to the argument that there is solely a correlation between pornography and hostility and violence towards women and not a causal relationship between the two, the former Chairman commented: 

"… if the argument were sustainable, then moves to subsequently restrict pornography in already open societies should have no demonstrable effect. Consider then, the following: In Hawaii in 1974, restrictions were placed on the sale of pornographic material. Rape figures fell for the following two years. The restrictions were then lifted, and rape immediately increased (United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation 1973-78); and 

In Oklahoma County, 'adult' stores were closed in 1985 and a 25 per cent decrease in the rape rate occurred over the next five years 1985-90. In the remainder of Oklahoma, there was no such law and no increase in the rape rate." 

The brief statements I have just made provide food for thought on the argument that pornography can affect the incidence of sexual assault in NSW. 

I would like to now turn to the arguments against pornography per se.

 Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I conclude by saying that the bill removes the offence of possessing or copying 18+ rated films for the purpose of sale or exhibition, but at the same time increases penalties for the sale or exhibition of RC films. Currently, proceedings are not to be brought against any person for publishing an obscene libel or an indecent article first, for the purposes of an application for classification under the Commonwealth Act, or if the libel or article is, or is part of, a film, publication or computer game. There is no doubt that the crux of the issue is the lack of effective enforcement. 

Finally, I point out that it is anomalous that the honourable member is supporting the legalisation of X-rated material when, at the same time, he is so vehemently in favour of supporting the interests of the Muslim constituency, because Muslims, like many Christians, hold strong conservative views about pornography for the reasons that I have previously expressed. I think the honourable member is sending mixed messages. 

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose. 

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 5 May 2005, Pages 6 - (article 10)

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
CLASSIFICATIONS (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL 
Page: 15668 

Second Reading Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose. 

NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 5 May 2005, Pages 27 - (article 40)

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard (Proof)
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL
Page: 23

Second Reading 

Debate resumed from 5 May 2005. 

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.15 p.m.]: I oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, about which a number of members have spoken. Following the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, I reiterate the Christian Democratic Party's total opposition to this bill and call on all honourable members to reject it. X-rated videos have a long history in New South Wales. The most recent bulletin of the Eros Association provides an up-to-date report on this issue. It states that it hopes this bill is passed, and congratulates the Hon. Peter Breen on introducing it. It states also: 

The Rev Fred Nile is pretty smart. In 1985 he single handedly had X-rated videos banned in NSW. He outsmarted and out-witted the urbane Labor Premier, Neville Wran, just as easily as you please. 

I suppose that is a way to get Labor people to vote for it: by attacking a very wise decision made by Premier Wran at that time. It states also:

So the introduction of a new Private Member's Bill in NSW to legalise the sale of X videos … offers NSW politicians the chance to put themselves on the X rated morality they line up with Fred Nile on one end or do they titter down the see saw to a more balanced position? Do they represent people in their electorates who support Fred Nile's position on morality or do they represent the type of person who might hire out an adult video to watch with their partner on a night after the footy … 

An Independent member in the Upper House, Peter Breen, has introduced the Bill. 

We all know the jargon used to describe the topic we are debating. The X-rated video industry uses the term "adult videos", and those who sell them formed an Adult Video Association. We are talking about hard-core obscene videos that are normally associated with organised crime. When the Hon. Peter Breen introduced this bill he said he wanted to get rid of organised crime. He said there will be no crime if we legalise X-rated videos. I will inform the honourable member about those who run the X-rated video industry. 

Four years after the Australian self-styled hard-core obscene pornography industry was legalised in the Australian Capital Territory in 1990, it was severely compromised by organised crime from the United States of America. This happened when Celina Sturman, the daughter-in-law of the United States prince of pornography and member of the mafia La Gambino family, Reuben Sturman, acquired an interest in an X-rated video retail business in the Australian Capital Territory. 

I have details about that business. A copy of a declaration of trust dated 22 June 1994 shows that David Sturman acquired a business interest in Melhero Pty Ltd, the ACN number of which is provided, which had its registered office at 42 Hoskins Street, Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory. At the time Melhero was trading as Adam and Eve at 125 Gladstone Street, Fyshwick, Australian Capital Territory, and as the Mustang Ranch at unit 14, Molonglo Mall, Fyshwick, Australian Capital Territory, retailing pornographic materials. The term "Mustang Ranch" almost implies an involvement with prostitution. The declaration of trust was signed by Celina Sturman, who had power of attorney for David Sturman. 

At that time David Sturman was serving a prison sentence in the United States of America. It clearly showed a link between organised crime, hardcore pornography and the Australian Capital Territory. Reuben Sturman, the father of David Sturman, was involved with organised crime in the United States of America. The United States of America Internal Revenue Service had been trying to recoup more than US$30 million in penalties and back taxes owed to the service by Reuben Sturman. It is said that legalising X-rated videos will rid us of organised crime. However, if that happened, organised crime figures would be rubbing their hands with glee because that would give them protection for the sale of their products. 

The mafia entered into the legalised pornography industry in the Australian Capital Territory, and must have been very surprised that they could operate legally and sell their product. Further, because of a loophole, they could use Australia Post to send X-rated videos from their shops in Canberra into all States that had banned X-rated videos. It was not just New South Wales but all States of Australia that had banned X-rated videos. By a loophole provided in Federal law, the Australian Capital Territory, having an independent Legislative Assembly, could pass its own laws, and it passed a law amending the legislation and enabling X-rated videos to be sold in the Australian Capital Territory. 

I understand the basic motive of the Government of the Australian Capital Territory was that this was an area that it could tax, and being very short of revenue, it thought it could subsidise its budget by imposing a tax on X-rated videos. That is what happens in Canberra. Sadly, this opened the door for the distribution of X-rated videos through Australia Post. That is amazing. These videos are prohibited in New South Wales, yet an Australia Post postman carries and delivers these videos to letterboxes in New South Wales. I would have thought that Australia Post has a responsibility not to carry products into States that have prohibited those products. 

The Hon. Peter Breen said in his presentation that, in his opinion—and I emphasise it was his opinion—some X-rated videos are being sold in Kings Cross and in George Street in the city, and therefore we should legalise the videos and regulate their control and sale. The honourable member said there was a problem. I acknowledge there is a problem. But my solution to the problem involves putting an end to the sale and distribution of these X-rated videos. These videos have been refused classification and are illegal, and therefore these illegal activities should be dealt with by the New South Wales Police Force. We all know that New South Wales had a very efficient Vice Squad. 

However, it came to light in the New South Wales royal commission into police corruption that there was corruption in the Police Force—as far as I could tell, mainly in the area of prostitution. Some police officers had been tempted and allowed themselves to become involved in compromising associations with prostitutes. Instead of acting according to their role as a policeman, they were becoming associated with a prostitute and possibly taking bribes and payments. For those reasons, the police royal commission was very critical of the operation of the Vice Squad. 

That led the government of the day to disband the Vice Squad. But that created a vacuum. The Police Force has squads that specialise in various areas, whether car stealing, housebreaking, drugs and so on. The Vice Squad was an elite unit that specialised in vice. They knew the laws regarding prostitution and pornography, and they knew the classification system. Even though it was revealed that there were some corrupt officers, I would hope that the majority were honest. With the disbanding of the Vice Squad we lost their skills and knowledge in policing these areas, particular illegal videos, which is rather complicated. Police need to know the law. Recently we heard about the controversy on the question of how child pornography was to be classified and the procedures to be followed to have that material classified, and even then there was some confusion. That demonstrates the need for specialised police. 

Rather than passing this bill—which I hope will be defeated—and instead of legalising X-rated videos, we should be reconstituting the Vice Squad or a squad with similar expertise, perhaps known by another name. It may be advisable to have another name as the former Vice Squad had been compromised. It could be named a decency squad, but its officers would need special training in classification laws, so that they could monitor illegal activities of video shops, especially those in George Street in the city and in Kings Cross, but in any other relevant places round the State. They must have that knowledge. 

I have found over the years that, even though complaints are made at local police stations or to a local police officer, because the local officers are not skilled in this area they are very reluctant to take action. If they were too aggressive, perhaps they could be subject to criticism such as: Are you just anti-porn? Are you obsessed with this issue? Why are you laying these charges? You are just a general duties patrol officer, so why are you involved in charging people with pornography offences? As far as I can tell, most police officers adopt a hands-off attitude to pornography. That is why a special unit is necessary. If such a unit were set up, consisting of honest and knowledgeable police officers, this area of illegal activity would be cleaned up overnight. 

What has been allowed to happen shows that organised crime has been involved and, on the evidence I have seen, is still involved in this X-rated video business, particularly on the production side. X-rated videos are not produced by the boy scouts or the Baptist Church; they are produced by criminals. Those people obviously are in this evil business for profit motives. Thus there is an overlap in the production of pornographic videos, the use of prostitutes, drug addiction and even child pornography. It is all part of an empire. As I have said, in the United States of America the group that was, and still is, behind the industry is in fact the United States mafia. We know that the American government has had long and historical problems with the mafia and its efforts to crack down on mafia families. In recent years, United States governments have been more successful than had been past governments. 

Organised crime has taken advantage of changes in the laws in the Australian Capital Territory, and to a lesser degree in the Northern Territory, to bring X-rated videos into this country from the United States of America. They have invested a lot of money in this industry, and of course they want to make profits from it. In 1990 the Australian Capital Territory Government, which sadly was an Australian Labor Party government, passed the Business Franchise (X-rated Videos) Act, which for the first time in Australia legalised the duplication and distribution of X-rated videos. It allowed mail order companies in the Australian Capital Territory to distribute them to customers in other States where duplication and distribution was banned. 

Some time later the Northern Territory enacted legislation similar to that in the Australian Capital Territory. It should be noted that the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are what I would call the two inexperienced legislatures. Usually, States like New South Wales and Victoria have more experience and knowledge and can see the potential dangers in legislation such as that passed by the Australian Capital Territory, a novice legislature that fell for the trap. 

Non-compliance with, and avoidance of, the law and regulations has been the problem with the legalisation of the retail of X-rated videos since 1990. The Hon. Peter Breen has argued that if the retail of X-rated videos is legalised, distributors will have to abide by the laws and regulations. His reasoning is that those who make these types of videos are like little children and that they will obey all the regulations and the rules. Since 1990 a number of inquiries have focused on the sale of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory. In 1997 the then Attorney-General said: 

A case recently arose in which a prosecution against an X film licensee, for allegedly possessing approximately 16,000 unclassified films with an intention of selling of the films, was dismissed on technical grounds associated with deficiencies in procedures followed when the films were submitted for classification by the prosecution to the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The end result was that a total of 16,000 films, some of which had been refused classification when submitted to the OFLC as part of the case, and others which were known to still be unclassified, had to be returned to the licensee. 

The licensee, who had been checked out, applied for, and was granted, a licence to sell X-rated videos, but the business carried 16,000 unclassified films. Unfortunately, the prosecution of the licensee was unsuccessful because of various technicalities. The Office of Film and Literature Classification is a Federal office, and this can result in confusion when the State police are trying to work with a Federal authority that has State agencies. In 1998 the Australian Capital Territory Government Registrar of X Film Licences reported: 

• That many breaches and offences are occurring undetected, or unable to be brought to prosecution due to lack of resources. 

• There has been a significant level of unclassified, or refused classification, titles being sold or displayed for sale, or copied, in some licensed premises. 

• The industry is not meeting the requirements of the Act. 

• The industry still needs to achieve levels of compliance at the community expects. 

• Breaches of the spirit of the classification laws require greater supervision. 

• The industry needs to apply more time and resources to compliance. 

The Hon. Peter Breen is naive to think that passing this simple bill will solve all our problems. Organised crime will continue to operate in the shadows and people who have a licence to sell X-rated films will continue to break the law and do everything they can to conceal their illegal activities. Another report details the operations of some of these organisations and their non-compliance, such as the Hill Group of Companies. Elements of the industry will try to blackmail politicians to vote in favour of this type of bill. In February 1994 it was revealed that prior to the 1993 Federal election two officials of the pornography industry threatened to out two Coalition backbenchers and a former senior Liberal for buying pornography if the Coalition went ahead with its proposed ban on X-rated videos. 

These operators will use any dirty tactic to protect their business. We could spend a lot of time talking about the dangers of X-rated videos if they became legal. Once such videos are taken home by those who buy or hire them, they can be shown to anyone, including people underage. We must do as much as is humanly possible to restrict the availability of hard-core pornographic material. I will not detail for members the content of hard-core pornographic material; I hope members have informed themselves about it. This week in the Parliamentary Theatrette Mr Jim Wallace, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, will speak on this matter and show extracts from hard-core pornographic videos. I realise the content of such videos is unpleasant and disgusting, but as members of Parliament we must be informed about what we are debating. This is not Playboy or girlie magazine stuff, it is obscene hard-core pornographic material. One of the ugliest and saddest aspects of pornography is that women are depicted as virtual animals, often sexually abused by not just one man but two or three men at a time. 

The promoters of the material claim that the women who appear in the videos consent to this behaviour. But who knows what pressures are put on women to allow themselves to be the subject of such abuse. Over the years women have come forward claiming that they were forced and threatened to take part in the production of pornographic videos. The impact on those who watch X-rated videos is not the only concern. The circumstances in which they are produced are tragic. For the reasons stated we should support the wise decision of the Hon. Neville Wran, which was followed by all other States, to prohibit X-rated videos. Neville Wran is a civil libertarian, and if he can come to such a decision, so should we. 

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ian West.

Proof, NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 24 May 2005, Pages 17 - (article 23)

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard (Proof)
PARLIAMENT HOUSE PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL EXHIBITION
Page: 24

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Attorney General. Is the Minister aware of a request by the Office of Film and Literature Classification seeking a ruling on a proposal by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes to hold a public exhibition of pornographic material in the Parliament's Waratah Room today at 1.00 p.m.? Is the Minister also aware that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile informed this House on Tuesday of this week that he would be publicly exhibiting in the Parliament "hard-core pornographic material"? Is the Minister further aware that the honourable reverends propose holding their public exhibition of pornographic material contrary to the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995? I refer to the honourable reverends' proposal to publicly exhibit extracts of R18+ material for educational purposes when there is no such exemption in the relevant legislation and the penalty for exhibiting an extract from R18+ material is $11,000? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the honourable reverends do not proceed with their illegal public porn display? 

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: To a large extent the question of the honourable member seeks opinions. As I have said on a number of occasions, I am very well qualified to give opinions on a range of matters, but I will decline in these circumstances.

Proof, NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 26 May 2005, Pages 23 - (article 11)

******

The following is debate from the Queensland Parliament into the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The bill proposes an amendment to the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1992, the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classification of Publications Act 1991. 

51ST PARLIAMENT
TUESDAY, 10 MAY 2005

Second Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (2.45 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The bill seeks to amend several acts administered by my portfolio to achieve three main aims. In particular the bill:

 • amends Queensland’s classifications legislation to reflect recent legislative changes to classification types in the Commonwealth’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995; 

• contains an amendment to subsection 28(1) of the Land Sales Act 1984 to facilitate major property development in Queensland; and • amends the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to provide greater flexibility to Tourism Queensland in the way that it may perform its functions. The Queensland classifications legislation to be amended to reflect recent legislative changes to classification types in the Commonwealth’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 are: 

• the Classification of Films Act 1991; 

and 10 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1213 

• the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995. In addition, the bill makes some consequential amendments to the Criminal Code to reflect the changes made to the classifications types in the Queensland classifications legislation. The bill also amends the definition of ‘publication’ in the Classification of Publications Act 1991 to make it the same as the definition of ‘publication’ in the Commonwealth act. The Queensland classifications legislation and the Commonwealth act form a National Classification Scheme shared between the Commonwealth and the states and territories for the classification of publications, films and computer games.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification is the Australian government agency that administers the National Classification Scheme. Classification decisions are made by members of the Classification Board who are representative of the Australian community. Every film, video and computer game legally available in Australia, whether produced locally or overseas, has to be classified by the Classification Board before it can be made available to the public. Some publications also need to be classified. These classifications decisions may be reviewed by the Classification Review Board. When making classification decisions, both the boards are bound by the Commonwealth act and classification guidelines. 

The classifications given to materials, represented by symbols such as G, MA15+ or R18+, which are included, for example, on video or computer game covers, are designed to help parents and other members of the community make informed decisions about what they or their children watch, read or play. 

Under the National Classification Scheme, the states and territories are responsible for the enforcement of classification decisions. Therefore Queensland, like the other states and territories, has its own classification legislation to complement the Commonwealth act. This legislation sets out how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated in each state or territory. 

In 2004 the Commonwealth amended its legislation to introduce new standard classification types for films and computer games based on well-known film classifications. This also created a more effective distinction between those classification types that are advisory in nature, such as G, PG and M, and those to which legally enforceable restrictions apply, such as MA15+, R18+ and X18+. 

The amendments aim to create a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games. Research by the Office of Film and Literature Classification indicated less than half of the population is aware of the computer games classification scheme and that consumers are very confused about the existing MA classification. Therefore, renaming the computer games classifications to mirror the well-known film classifications will assist parents in choosing appropriate games for their children. 

While the bill renames the classifications it does not affect the material permissible within them. For example, consistent with the previous agreement of censorship ministers, the bill does not introduce an R classification for computer games. Queensland’s legislation is being amended to reflect changes made to Commonwealth legislation. 

..........The amendments to the Queensland classifications acts will not change standards in Queensland in relation to the sale, distribution or possession of publications, films or computer games. However, they will make the classifications system easier to use and understand and are essential to maintain the integrity of the National Classifications Scheme. The amendment to the Land Sales Act 1984 represents a minor extension of existing policy and will help facilitate major property development in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Hopper, adjourned.

51ST PARLIAMENT
TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2005

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill. In so doing, I want to put on the record some comments made to me by constituents not only in my electorate but also around Queensland. In particular, I want to speak on the changes to the Queensland classification legislation. The Commonwealth’s contribution to the National Classification Scheme stands on the Commonwealth act, which establishes the Classification Board and sets out procedures the Classification Board follows in making its classification decisions. It has a number of mechanisms which it uses to determine, after viewing films or games and the like, how those classifications will be applied. Under that National Classification Scheme, the states and territories take on the responsibility of enforcement of the classification decisions. We have our own set of classification legislation, but in terms of consistency it must complement the Commonwealth act. It is my understanding that these changes came about because the Commonwealth changed its classification system a year or so ago. This legislation sets out how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated in each state or territory. 

A number of constituents—and I add my support to their comments—have commended the Queensland government on changes that have been made and additional protection that has been given to children through the government’s various pieces of legislation in terms of the child safety department and Criminal Code changes. However, some of the recent decisions by the Classification Board have been contradictory and have undermined the hard work that has been done by the Queensland government in that regard. One person who contacted my office stated— 

The OFLC has given an MA rating to the new Nicole Kidman film ‘Birth'. This film concerns a widow, and a 10 year old boy who claims to be the reincarnation of her late husband. At one point, the film portrays the two in a bath together, naked, and while there they share a kiss ... One can imagine the delight of every paedophile at this portrayal of child pornography. About this scene, one reviewer said— 

and these are people used to seeing movies of all classifications— 

‘What is shown on-screen is a bold and clear representation of the double standard held between the sexes in Hollywood. Women are seldom thought of as paedophiles or molesters. It's generally not in the nature of a female human being. Imagine Robert De Niro sitting naked in a bathtub. Dakota Fanning walks in, looks at him ... and then strips ... to crawl into the tub with him. ... The message is clear: sexual relationships between adults and 10 year olds, as long as consent is there, is OK. The film has received mixed reviews, but as the star is seen as an acceptable role model for our young people, it is likely to have wide viewing. 

The film was given an MA tag. This writer and others have said that it should have received a much higher classification. The letter continues— 

... it will be seen by children, and eventually it will be available for home use on video. Our impressionable youth will therefore be thinking that this is acceptable: paedophiles and child-porn producers will be thinking up more ways to get child pornography accepted. 

Again, the writer and others commended the Labor government on its strengthening of protection for children but see these sorts of classifications by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as undermining the very strong moves that the government has made in an attempt to protect our children. The guidelines for the classification of films and computer games state that a film should be refused classification if it includes depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or looks like a child under 16. It is the contention of this and other writers that the film Birth gives that intention. I believe that people have written to the minister with those concerns. 

A further letter that I received related to a film called Mysterious Skin. It has been classified as R18+ by the Classification Board, but a minority of the board considers that it contravenes the classification guidelines for the R category so that classification should have been refused. This film was directed in the US. It deals with the experiences of two young boys who are sexually abused at the age of eight by their baseball coach. The concern that was expressed to me was that, even though there are some very explicit scenes and prolonged explicit scenes in this film, the Classification Board in Australia in this instance has given it a classification. Under the guidelines it should have been refused classification altogether. 

The reason I bring these concerns to the minister is that, whilst this legislation is being amended to reflect the federal legislation—and that is necessary for consistency—there are concerns in the community, and very valid concerns, about the work of the Classification Board itself. I would request that, if she has an opportunity to have input into that process, the minister raise these concerns of members of our community in relation to the undermining of the good work that is being done by the government here in terms of child protection by these sorts of decisions.

Quite often matters are brought to our attention by constituents, particularly parents, concerned about materials that are released and accessible by children. It is only a fairly recent thing that video games have been classified at all. Some of them are brutal. Some of them are extensively explicit and must have an effect on the psyche of children developing their values and attitudes. With regard to anything that we as a parliament can do to reinforce the work that we have been doing over the past few years, particularly in highlighting the value of our children—the value of the information that they have unfettered access to, a recognition of the fact that not all parents are vigilant and therefore some children do access material that they otherwise should not that perhaps in some homes would be put out of their reach and, one would hope, in many homes would not even be included in the home environment—and to bolster the minister’s work and the work of other ministers in this government to reinforce the protection of children, I am sure that we would be there right behind her supporting her. 

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.11 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. At the outset, I know that this bill proposes an amendment to the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1992, the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classification of Publications Act 1991. When I read the bill and the minister’s explanatory notes, it seemed to me that this is just another example of Queensland legislation being amended to reflect changes to Commonwealth legislation made by the Commonwealth parliament. I understand that the amendments are aimed at creating a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games. 

 In the minister’s second reading speech she stated— In 2004 the Commonwealth amended its legislation to introduce new standard classification types for films and computer games. It is now May 2005 and we in the Queensland parliament are now debating amendments to our own legislation. To me this is simply another example of the duplication of resources. We have the federal government holding committee meetings, then debating amendments to legislation and then passing legislation. Then 12 months later, another parliament somewhere else in Australia—this time the 51st Parliament of Queensland—is debating amendments to legislation that other members sitting in committee rooms have already discussed and debated. In my mind we are simply debating legislation that has already been passed somewhere else to ensure that we are consistent with national scheme legislation in Australia. This is not the first time that we in this parliament have justified making amendments to our legislation on the basis of complying with national scheme legislation. This has made me ponder the future of state parliaments. As I walked down the corridor, I looked at the honour board for the Queensland Legislative Council. I note that that council was abolished on 23 March 1922. While we debate so passionately the need for national scheme legislation, perhaps we also need to consider improving the standard of government in Australia by doing away with state governments. I know that is a debate for another time, but I really think that it is timely to consider such an issue when we are debating the introduction of amendments into our legislation to comply with national scheme legislation and to comply with legislation that has been passed in the federal parliament. This issue also prompted me to undertake some research on the amount of federal tax money that is used to prop up state governments. I note that in 2003-04 the proportion of the state budget that received— 

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Will the member for Nicklin return to the context of the bill.

Mr WELLINGTON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, during the debate on this bill other deputy speakers have allowed other members to digress to a certain extent. They have not enforced a strict interpretation of keeping the debate relevant to the bill. So Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I urge you to allow me a tolerance similar to that allowed to other members. 

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member some leeway, as I have to other speakers. Please return to the bill 

Mr WELLINGTON: I will return to the bill. This bill makes amendments to Queensland legislation to make it consistent with national scheme legislation. It is interesting to note in the current budget that 49 per cent of our funding has come from the federal government. In the 2003-04 budget the percentage of funding from the federal government was 45¼ per cent. Those are significant figures for us to ponder. I turn now to the second part of this bill, which makes amendments to the Tourism Queensland Act. In the minister’s second reading speech she stated— The bill seeks to amend the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to provide greater flexibility to Tourism Queensland in the way that it may perform its functions. These amendments are facilitative only and decisions about the best way to achieve Tourism Queensland’s objectives will always be made on a case-by-case basis, giving proper consideration to the interests of all relevant parties. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, again I urge you to reflect on the willingness of other deputy speakers to allow members to digress from the narrow interpretation of relevance to the bill so that I can refer to some matters that impact on tourism. While talking about this bill and its relevance to tourism in Queensland, I wish to refer to the whale watching tourism industry that takes place along the Queensland coast and in other areas of Australia. Whale watching is a very important tourism industry. I think it is important that this government stands up to the Japanese government and sends a very clear message to them that whale watching is a tourism industry that we want to support, encourage and enhance. I think it is time that we said ‘enough is enough’. In the past we have seen the Queensland government very quickly and easily close down the state’s small fishers industry. I challenge the minister and I challenge the Premier and Minister for Trade to use that enthusiasm to say to the Japanese government ‘enough is enough’. We want to see whales survive and their numbers grow in our waters.’ We certainly do not support in any shape or form the killing of whales, which is what I understand the Japanese government is proposing. I also want to put on the record my appreciation to the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, for taking the lead on this issue. John Howard sent a strongly worded letter to the Japanese Prime Minister setting out very clearly that he does not support the killing of whales and that he believes Australians do not support the killing of whales. I urge the Premier and Minister for Trade and the minister for tourism to follow that lead and send a very clear message that we in Australia believe very strongly and passionately about this issue. We do not want to see the killing of whales. More importantly, we should be supporting and encouraging the protection of whales. 

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.17 pm): I wish to speak briefly in support of the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Unlike the member for Nicklin, lots of parents have come to me and told me how much they want to see classifications on computer games and the consistency of classifications. That is what this bill has done. The amendments that this bill makes to classifications will help not only parents but all of us to make decisions about what we watch or play on our computer screens. I have a friend who is a member of the Classification Board. That board does an outstanding job. Often during work hours, my friend has to leave the workplace and travel interstate to make decisions on classifications. So the members of this board give up a lot of their time to look at things—which are probably not very pleasant, and which I and other members do not get to view—and make choices on behalf of the community. I think they have a hard job. They have to be broad-minded and take into account the opinions of the whole community, not just their own opinions. As I said, the consistent classification of images will help parents understand what the classifications represent when they choose games, images or other material for their children. I am really pleased that this legislation will also help grandparents. I know that when I go shopping with my grandmother to select computer games or CDs for my nephew, to see the look on her face when she sees some of the covers is quite interesting. So I am sure that grandparents will be very pleased with this bill as it will certainly allow them to understand the classifications better when they are choosing gifts for their grandchildren. Online computer games seem to be all the rage now. I am a little concerned about those. I think they are the next chapter in waiting with regard to how paedophiles get in touch with children. To date I have not heard of any such instances but, then again, it was not that long ago that we were talking about the incidents that occur with chat rooms around the world. I think parents need to be vigilant not only with chat rooms and what classifications of games they buy for their children but also in talking to their children about online computer games—watching the games and seeing what their children are doing— because online computer games are another avenue through which people can get in touch with one another. With that brief contribution, I support the bill.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.20 pm): The Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is a very important piece of legislation. I know that parallels have been drawn with the national classification system for home computer games and films. I believe that we have to take a long, hard look at our society today in relation to the classification system. I know that the minister is passionate about this issue, too. I think we share a common view about what is happening. Some of these exhibitions, whether they be movies or computer games—and I want to particularly talk about movies—leave a lot to be desired. Late last night, at about 10 or 11 o’clock, I turned on the TV to SBS. What I saw on SBS was absolute filth. That is what it was—absolute filth. I am no prude, but a little kid could be up at that hour—we know kids are up at that hour—and could see that sort of exhibition. What hope have we got? I draw the parliament's attention to that today. We have review mechanisms in place in this legislation. I know there are review mechanisms in place, but at the same time I think some of the responsibility should rest with the people who put these programs to air. They should be showing leadership and responsibility in relation to what is shown on our screens. I know there are adult shops around the place and I know that people can buy adult films, but at the end of the day we have to protect our young people. There is a table in the explanatory notes that lists existing film and computer games classification types. There is G, which is general; G8+, which is general for age eight and over; and M15+, which is mature for those aged 15 and over. What is the difference between a seven-year-old and an eight- or nine-year-old? I know that this is the old classification system, but this is where there needs to be closer scrutiny. I know that members on both sides of the House have canvassed these issues in the past, but it comes back to one thing: there is violence on the square box—there is no doubt about it—and the violence is unacceptable in many cases. We should be taking a long, hard look at some of these films in question. If I see a violent movie or see something violent even on the news, I turn the TV off and walk away. I do not like it and there are probably a lot of people who think that way. When a young person sees that sort of thing, they must think that people condone that. That is how their little minds become warped. I hope that the measures in this legislation will address that. At the end of the day, it is up to the parents. A lot of parents and guardians work different hours. But what price can you put on our young people? We cannot put a price on them and they are not negotiable. I think we have to closely scrutinise how this is policed in the future because, when it comes to crime, these films and computer games can be the root of evil. The police are trying to do a job and when they ask juveniles, ‘Where did you see that?’ they answer, ‘I saw it on TV.’ They think it must be okay because they saw it on the TV. We live in a permissive society today. There is a different set of values today from the set of values that the 89 members of this parliament were brought up with. I think we have to be hard and fast about making some changes. I hope that the minister can keep her hands on the wheel and that we will see outcomes of better viewing for our young people and hopefully more enjoyment and entertainment. When I was a child we did not have TV. In latter years some good movies came out and we can still watch those movies today.

.....Mrs PRATT: I will go on to another part of the bill that amends the Queensland classifications register which amends the Classification of Publications Act 1991, the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995. This is mainly to reflect the recent legislative changes to classification markers in the Commonwealth and to make other changes. The bill also amends the definition of publication in the Classification of Publications Act 1991. 

With regard to the classification of things, I think this is really quite timely especially with films and computer games. Most of us did not grow up with computer games, but as a grandmother I have actually seen some of the computer games that my grandchildren have got their hands on. To be quite honest, I was shocked at the goriness of some of these things. My eldest grandson turned six recently. He was given a computer game that basically said, ‘Well, go out there and kill as many people as you can’, which I found rather offensive. This is in New South Wales. I was quite disturbed by that. It brought home to me just how innocently anyone who is not familiar with these games or really aware of what they contain could be caught in the trap of buying something that is totally inappropriate for a child. 

I must admit that if a person knows anything about these sorts of games, they will trial it first. However, nobody did that. It was quite horrifying to see. Of course, at that age, the kids did not pick up on it. They just thought that it was part of the fun and games, and carried on. An example that another member alluded to related to films and particularly to the film Birth. Personally, I was not comfortable with the character played by Nicole Kidman sitting in a bath with a child and then kissing that child on the lips inappropriately. Now, that child's character may have been older, but it would perhaps come across to some people as child abuse. It was mentioned earlier that perhaps a paedophile would see some hypocrisy in that. 

Perhaps each and every one of us would view that situation in a different manner. Some might see it as an artistic film. Some might see it as a natural thing that occurs within society; some might not. Quite frankly, film classifications must be strict enough to ensure that children do not inadvertently see this type of thing and consider it to be a natural part of everyday life. My concern about the classification of entertainment materials is this: what was considered offensive 15 or 20 years ago is now accepted by most people as normal. We are not offended very easily by most things anymore. That worries me. Consider, for example, bad language. In my household, I do not allow swearing and I never have. Recently I was talking with my son, who is aged 30, and he started to use words which I find offensive. I pulled him up. He said, ‘But mum, everybody uses it’, and I said, ‘Not everybody uses it, sweetheart. I don’t.’ He said, ‘Oh, sorry.’ It is just a matter of each and every one of us deciding what is and what is not acceptable. Whether our standards have dropped or we have become more accepting of once unacceptable things is up to each person to judge for themselves. However, I believe that we have become desensitised to a lot of these things. That is a situation that we need to watch and which the classification people need to watch. Quite frankly, the easier it is to understand the classifications the better for people who are not familiar with games or anything else that might come in the future. I think this is a necessary move. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House. 

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (4.52 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and, particularly, for the broad support for two out of the three amendments contained in the bill before the House. I particularly thank the members for Whitsunday, Cleveland, Aspley and Springwood for their significant contributions, particularly their comments with regard to classifications. I also acknowledge their support of the Queensland tourism industry. 

Before turning to some issues of contention, I will reply to the comments made by the members for Gladstone and Nanango regarding the amendments in the bill to the Classification of Publications Act, and so on. As has been indicated, this bill seeks to mirror the Commonwealth’s classification act and is simply complementary. Quite rightly, the members for Gladstone and Nanango have raised certain issues. The member for Gladstone has written to me with respect to her concerns about some of the decisions made by the Commonwealth Classification Board. I understand that these are considered to be very serious issues by some parts of the community and particularly by some special groups.

As I said, Queensland seeks to mirror the decisions made by the Classification Board. If honourable members have concerns about classifications, particularly the criteria used by the Commonwealth Classification Board to make decisions, I encourage them to write to their federal members and to the federal minister with respect to their concerns. The member for Gladstone, in particular, raised this matter when she asked if there is anything that she can do with respect to recent classification decisions.