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 "