| 17.09.05 | 2 from ROCCO RC Fatherhood Foundation. Rating Compliance Agreement. WOLF CREEK R18+ by RB. GTA: SA MA15+ Again. Big Brother Breach. Andrew Bartlett Speech. Andrea Coote Question. WA Censorship Bill. Eros Press Release. More |
| 17th September | Calvista
have been having a hard time lately with the Classification Board. Two
titles from Rocco Siffredi are the latest victims of the censors. ROCCO
RAVISHES IBIZA 2 and ROCCO:
TOP OF THE WORLD were both rated RC. A cut version of the latter title has
since been passed X18+.
****** The Fatherhood Foundation are yet another group of conservatives who are being taken seriously by those in power. Their campaign to have internet filters installed in public libraries has already been brought up in the Victorian Parliament. They are also pushing to have warning labels attached to Adult DVDs and magazines. Library porn anger. Herald-Sun 19.08.05 PUBLIC libraries that refuse to stop peddling internet pornography should have their funding cut, a federal MP has demanded. Victorian Labor MP Anthony Byrne said a recent survey had revealed that most public libraries across Melbourne had easily accessible internet pornography, which could be downloaded by adults or children."The purpose of libraries is not to view pornography but to educate and nourish the people who use them," he said. "I think parents would be incredibly disturbed to know how easily porn can be accessed in public libraries without their knowledge." Push for warnings on porn material. Herald-Sun 29.08.05 PRO-family groups and conservative and Christian MPs have joined forces to push for compulsory health warnings on sexually explicit DVDs and magazines. The activists, who boast the support of federal Employment Minister Kevin Andrews, want cigarette-pack-style warning labels placed on DVDs and magazines containing R-rated sex scenes or images."This is sexually explicit material which might lead to sex-addiction and relationship problems," is one tag proposed by the Fatherhood Foundation, a conservative group opposed to porn and prostitution. Asked about the foundation's proposal, a spokesman for Mr Andrews said labelling R-rated material was "certainly something worth looking at". ****** Following on from their August 14th Media
Release, the OFLC have now came to agreement with the cinema industry
about better enforcing the guidelines. Such a quick response obviously has
nothing to do with fact that Steve Fielding of the Family First Party
brought it up in the Senate. Cinema industry and Government regulator agree on initiatives to ensure families are better informed At a joint meeting today, the cinema industry and the Office of Film and Literature Classification have committed to work closely together to ensure that families have access to clear, correct, easy-to-find classification information about the films they might be choosing to see at the cinema. “The OFLC has worked hard to devise a system that responsibly informs parents and other cinema-goers about the classification and the content of the films they can choose to see at the cinema,” said Cinema Industry spokesperson and Chairman of the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia, Joel Pearlman today. “We in the cinema industry take the responsibility of providing this information very seriously in the interests of providing the best possible cinema experience to consumers, particularly those with children,” Mr Pearlman said. Cinemas are required to feature classification information on advertisements for films in newspaper and magazine advertisements, posters, flyers, at box-office listings, on websites and before trailers at the cinema and on television. The meeting was requested by the cinema industry following a recent report by the OFLC about classification compliance by cinemas across Sydney. It revealed that the industry was still struggling to incorporate these requirements into all of their advertising. “Given the commitment the Australian Government has to protecting children from material that could be harmful or upsetting to them, I am heartened by the seriousness with which the cinema industry has responded to the Snapshot report,” said Director of the OFLC, Des Clark. “I was also delighted by the interest expressed by film distributors and exhibitors in working with the OFLC on best practice classification strategies,” Mr Clark said. Both the MPDAA and the OFLC agreed that it was preferable for both organisations to achieve a clear mutual understanding about how compliance with classification requirements will be achieved so that legal enforcement of the provisions would not be required. The Australian Independent Distributors Association, Independent Cinema Association of Australia, Greater Union, Hoyts, Village, Dendy, Palace and other independent distributors were also represented at the meeting. Media contacts Brinsley Marlay (OFLC) 02 9289 7187 or 0438 889 759 Brendan Gutsell (MPDAA) 02 9265 0260 or 0407 614 922 Background: The Classification Board makes classification decisions about films, computer games and publications. All films, computer games and submittable publications must be classified by the Classification Board before they can be sold or hired in Australia. The Classification Review Board makes classification decisions when a valid application has been made for a review of a film, computer game or publication for which the Classification Board has already made a decision. The Office of Film and Literature Classification provides administrative support to both the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. The OFLC is responsible for policy initiatives in relation to classification matters and the legislative framework within which the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board work. ****** Roadshow Films have failed in their attempt to get the R18+ rating of WOLF CREEK lowered to MA15+. Once again the Review Board has deemed it necessary to change the consumer advice. It has gone from 'High Level Violence, Coarse Language, Adult Themes' to 'High Level Realistic Violence, Strong Coarse Language'. Now, I feel so much better informed. Thanks Review Board! Australian Government Review announced for the film Wolf Creek The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the Australian film, Wolf Creek. Wolf Creek was classified R 18+ with the consumer advice, “High level violence, Coarse language, Adult themes”, by the Classification Board on 24 August 2005. The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 14 September 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. *** What a shocker: film hit with horror rating. SMH 11.09.05 An Australian film based loosely on the disappearance of Peter Falconio and the Ivan Milat murders has been given an R rating by the Office of Film and Literature Classification ahead of its November release. But Roadshow Films, the local distributor of Wolf Creek, has appealed against the rating decision so the horror film can be seen by a younger audience. A spokesman for the OFLC has confirmed a review of the R rating will take place on Wednesday. Roadshow Films is likely to appeal for an MA15+ rating (one step below the 18+ R rating) so the film can be seen by a segment of the teenage audience. *** Australian Government Wolf Creek classified R 18+ upon review A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the Australian film, Wolf Creek, is classified R 18+ with the consumer advice, “High level realistic violence, Strong coarse language.” “Unlike typical horror movies, Wolf Creek does not employ the usual tension-releasing devices, nor the stylized approaches to depictions of violence, instead striving for a tone of realism that takes it out of the realm of fantasy,” said Classification Review Board Deputy Convenor, The Hon Trevor Griffin. “This very realistic tone results in a film of high impact.” Mr Griffin also said that in the opinion of the Classification Review Board, the level of realism created by the documentary-style approach heightens the impact of the violence, which is frequent and, in some scenes, prolonged. 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, Roadshow Films, to review the R 18+ classification of Wolf Creek made by the Classification Board on 24 August 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. ****** Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is set to be back on the shelves after the Classification Board passed it MA15+(Strong Violence, Strong Coarse Language). ****** The complaints made against BIG BROTHER back in June have resulted in the ACMA finding that C10 breached the code of practice. Australian Government ACMA finds Big Brother Uncut in breach of code The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found Network Ten licensees in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice for broadcasts of Big Brother Uncut. Breaches were found in two of the three episodes of the program investigated by ACMA. The breaches were of clause 2.4 of the code, which requires that material be classified in accordance with the Television Classification Guidelines in the code. Big Brother Uncut is classified MA, meaning it is suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years and over and may only be screened after 9 pm. The investigation found material was screened that was in excess of the MA classification. Other material broadcast in Big Brother Uncut was considered to approach the limit of content permitted at the MA classification level. ‘MA classified material is the strongest permitted on free-to-air television. Because of this, broadcasters are obliged to exercise particular care in selecting material for this category,’ said Lyn Maddock, Acting ACMA Chair. ‘ACMA has found that on two of the occasions it investigated, Network Ten did not take sufficient care in selecting material for Big Brother Uncut.’ One breach, in the episode broadcast on 30 May 2005, involved what ACMA considered a gratuitous and demeaning portrayal of nudity. This scene depicted a male participant in the program massaging a female participant’s shoulders. The female was unaware that the male’s penis was exposed and near the back of her head. The other breach, in the 13 June 2005 episode, was for very coarse language that was not suitable for persons aged 15 years or over. A group of males composed a song containing references to fetishistic and degrading sexual behaviour. The impact of the language was such that it was not considered suitable for 15 year olds. ACMA is aware that Network Ten has taken steps to review the program’s production process in response to criticism about some of the behaviour of male participants in the 2005 series. Network Ten has offered to advise ACMA of the outcomes of that review including any new procedures that may be implemented as a result. ‘While welcoming the steps already taken by the licensee, ACMA will further discuss appropriate measures with Network Ten. Action requested of Network Ten by ACMA will be geared towards ensuring future breaches of the MA classification provisions do not occur,’ said Lyn Maddock. If Network Ten fails to provide appropriate undertakings, ACMA will consider imposing a licence condition on the Network Ten licensees. The full investigation report will be made available on the ACMA website following consideration of any comments on the text of the report by Network Ten, as required by law. Media contact: Donald Robertson ACMA Media Manager on (02) 9334 7980. BACKGROUNDER The investigation The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) initiated an investigation into three episodes of Big Brother Uncut on 23 June 2005. The ABA made its decision to investigate in response to considerable public comment on the contents of the program. The three episodes of the program examined were broadcast on 30 May 2005, 6 June 2005 and 13 June 2005. The Australian Communications and Media Authority took over the role and responsibilities of the ABA on 1 July 2005. The licensees that are the subject of the investigation are: Network Ten (Adelaide) Pty Limited, Network Ten (Brisbane) Pty Limited, Network Ten (Melbourne) Pty Limited, Network Ten (Perth) Pty Limited and Network Ten (Sydney) Pty Limited. The investigation report is currently being considered by the licensees under section 180 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Section 180 requires that persons likely to be adversely affected by a report be given an opportunity to make comment prior to publication. The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004 is the code of practice developed by the commercial television industry and registered by ACMA. Licensees are expected to comply fully with the code. The code contains the Television Classification Guidelines, which set out the classification categories permitted on commercial free-to-air television, and define the type of material that is suitable for each category. MA is the strongest category of material that is permitted on commercial television (apart from material containing violent content, for which a different classification applies). For material to be suitable for the MA classification, it must be suitable for viewing by persons aged 15. The relevant MA criteria are: The Mature Audience (MA) Classification 5. Material classified MA is suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years or over because of the intensity and/or frequency of sexual depictions, or coarse language, adult themes or drug use.. . . 5.2 Sex and nudity: Visual depiction of intimate sexual behaviour (which may only be discreetly implied or discreetly simulated) or of nudity only where relevant to the story line or program context. However, a program or program segment will not be acceptable where the subject matter serves largely or wholly as a vehicle for gratuitous, exploitative or demeaning portrayal of sexual behaviour or nudity. Exploitative or non-consenting sexual relations must not be depicted as desirable. 5.3 Language: The use of very coarse language must be appropriate to the story line or program context and not overly frequent or impactful.… 5.6 Adult themes: The treatment of strong themes should be justified by the story line or program context. Clause 2.4 of the code requires that material for broadcast be classified in accordance with these guidelines: 2.4 All other material for broadcast: Subject to Clauses 2.3 and 2.4.1, all other material for broadcast must be classified according to the Television Classification Guidelines (set out in Appendix 4) or, where applicable, the stricter requirements of Section 3: Program Promotions and Section 6: Classification and Placement of Commercials.
The program Big Brother is a reality television program that was broadcast by Network Ten licensees. The program presents a group of housemates sharing a house for approximately three months, and competing for a cash prize. Big Brother Uncut is an MA classified version of the program, and contains content that would not be suitable for broadcast in other time periods. ACMA enforcement powers for code breaches Having found that a breach of a code has occurred, ACMA can request an informal undertaking from a licensee that certain steps will be taken to ensure no future breach of a particular code provision occurs. A wide range of possible undertakings could be requested. ACMA may also decide to impose an additional condition on a licence. Additional licence conditions may be geared to corrective action in respect of a breach, or reducing the likelihood of future breaches. The scope for a licence condition is very broad. Compliance with the code itself could be made a licence condition. The imposition of a licence condition invokes some of ACMA’s stronger powers of sanction. Failure to comply with a licence condition allows ACMA to issue a notice directing compliance with the condition. Failure to comply with a notice means ACMA can suspend or cancel a licence, or refer the matter to the DPP for prosecution and possible imposition of a fine by the Federal Court. *** On a related note, here is a speech made by the Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett. ADJOURNMENT:
Television: Program Content Television: Program Content Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (7.38 p.m.)—Tonight I want to speak about a general topic that has been covered a few times both in the Senate and in the other place in this parliament, and that is the issue of content on television and the appropriateness of certain types of content at various times. We have had some speeches made in the parliament and there have also been comments made in the general community about the appropriateness of content on Big Brother and whether something should be done about that. For those of you who are not aware, Big Brother is a television show. I will get to that in a moment but I would like to firstly highlight some comments made by the head of the Australian Children’s Television Foundation, Janet Holmes a Court. She made some comments which I very much concur with. I recognise that any attempt to determine what type of content should be on television at particular hours is always going to be in part a matter of opinion. But, if you are looking at what is viewed by children, I do think there is a wider recognition and agreement amongst the community that we need to be aware of what sort of content may be readily available to children and whether or not it is appropriate or potentially harmful. Ms Holmes a Court was particularly talking about the need to consider restricting the amount of violent or distressing news images in the early evening. This is particularly apposite at the moment, with some of the awful images coming from New Orleans and other parts of the USA. But of course we all know that, sadly, pretty much every night on the television there will be fairly distressing images of death, destruction or violence of some sort of another in some part of the world. Frankly, I very much agree with the need to focus on this particular aspect. Whilst I understand the concern of some others who are a bit worried about naked breasts and bottoms on Big Brother late at night, I think there is a much bigger problem and a much bigger genuine concern about potentially very distressing images—images that I sometimes find quite distressing, let alone wondering how they might appear to young children—that appear not only on the 6 pm news but sometimes on news updates throughout the afternoon, the midday news and at all sorts of times of the day. It is not just a matter of say that more parental guidance and appropriate guardianship should be applied, though that might be arguable if you are talking about 8.30 or 9.30 at night. My daughter seems to want to stay up until midnight even though she is only three, so it gets a bit hard—but that is my problem. But I think that it is reasonable to assume that people have the television on in the house and you can expect that children of any age are likely to be around, and it is unrealistic to expect parents to have to be perpetually keeping half an eye on what might be flashing on the television. I am not saying that these issues should not be reported; I am simply talking about disturbing images, violent or distressing news images, in the early evening or other hours of the day. I would like to draw attention to the call by Janet Holmes a Court in her capacity as head of the Australian Children’s Television Foundation, because there are, as she says, horrendous images on the news all the time and there is no attempt in Australia to modify it when young people may be watching. I agree with her that we should look at it. I am not putting forward a specific proposal or a specific set of criteria; I would simply call on the government to take this comment on board. Indeed, I think the relevant minister is Senator Coonan, who is in the chamber at the moment. I am sure she is listening closely to everything I say, as she always does. I would ask her to take this comment on board, as she has done in considering some of the comments about Big Brother. With regard to some of the comments that others have made about Big Brother, I would have to say that, if you are looking at programs at 9.30 or 10.30 at night, I am not so convinced that images of naked breasts and bottoms or even stupid, inane or offensive behaviour by adults is necessarily something that we should be rushing to ban or something that should be able to be dragged off the TV screens. I do think there is an argument that people can decide for themselves what they want to watch and, if they want to watch that, it is up to them—and I say that as somebody who has not watched Big Brother for a while. I must say that I really could not stomach watching Big Brother anymore after the treatment that poor old Merlin Luck got when he was evicted. He decided to come out and use his 15 minutes of fame to make a political statement about refugees. For his trouble he was roundly slagged off by the host of Big Brother not just on that night but indeed for weeks to come. He was regularly ridiculed. I recall seeing him being ridiculed by the host and by Rove on Rove Live a few weeks later for being such an idiot as to waste his moment in the sun by making a statement about refugees. I thought it was pretty tragic, frankly, that someone who wanted to express an opinion, as opposed to coming out with the sort of nonsense that people normally say when they leave the Big Brother house, should be ridiculed. But that is for them to do, of course, and it is for others to decide whether or not they want to watch that show. I have to also say that, whilst I do not advocate censorship with regard to violent images late at night, I personally believe that it is violence and distressing images of violence and murder and the like that are much more potentially problematic than what is on so-called reality TV. Quite clearly what is on Big Brother is not reality. You can do things inside the Big Brother house, get lots of headlines and lots of controversy, and it gives us an opportunity to discuss amongst the community what sorts of behaviour are appropriate or not. If you try some of those behaviours outside in the real world, as opposed to the so-called reality TV world, then you can find yourself in a lot of trouble, as I think one of the Big Brother contestants found when they allegedly did something out in the street in North Queensland and found themselves arrested for their trouble. I think some of the crime shows and others that are on late at night have images that are far more problematic in terms of violence and the distressing and confronting nature of them. If anything were to be looked at, I would have to say that those are a much bigger problem than young people being like some young people tend to be—so I am told, not been so young anymore. I think the bigger concern is not what is on late night TV but what is on during normal hours early in the evening. If you want to talk about so-called pornographic images, as some people have described Big Brother, I have to say—once again showing my age—that some of the music clips on the video shows on Saturday morning TV are much closer to virtual pornography than I am comfortable with at a time when children are watching them. I want to
emphasise that the issue of much greater concern is violence, death and
destruction and those sorts of much more confronting images,
particularly for young children. I think it is children that we need to
be particularly concerned about rather than adults. It is the comments
of people like the Children’s Television Foundation that we should be
taking heed of. I urge the relevant minister to take those views into
account. Indeed, I urge the news networks to give a bit more thought to
this. It is preferable not to bring in some hard and fast regulation if
we can get a generally accepted practice beforehand. The occasional
disclaimers such as ‘images contained in this news report may be
distressing’ could probably be used rather more often. Or perhaps a
little more often they could think about not using some of the more
distressing images. ****** The following was asked in the Victorian Legislative Council by Andrea Coote from the Liberal Party. Title Arts: film and multimedia -- crude
violence 6 September 2005 COUNCIL Page 699 Arts: film and multimedia -- crude violence 4847. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE -- To ask the
Minister for Sport and Recreation (for the Minister for the Arts): What
regulations has the Minister for the Arts put in place to ensure that
crude violence has been reduced in movies and multimedia in Victoria. ANSWER: ****** The WA CENSORSHIP AMENDMENT BILL 2005 has now moved from the Legislative Assembly to the Legislative Council. House: Legislative Assembly CENSORSHIP AMENDMENT BILL 2005 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr J.B. D’Orazio (Minister for Justice), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR J.B. D’ORAZIO (Ballajura - Minister for Justice) [1.23 pm]: I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The Western Australian Censorship Amendment Act 2003, which came into effect on 1 July 2003, made Western Australia a full participant in the national classification scheme. Western Australia’s legislation is now consistent with that of other states and territories. Importantly, as a result of these changes, the state is no longer involved in the censorship of products, and the purpose of its Censorship Act 1996 now mainly relates to the enforcement of classification decisions. Following on from these important changes to the act, it is now proposed to change the name of the legislation to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act, so that the name better reflects the purpose of the act. This name is consistent with the names of the equivalent legislation in other states, particularly Victoria’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995, New South Wales’ Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 and Tasmania’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995. The change to the name of the legislation was foreshadowed when the 2003 amendment act was being debated in Parliament. The Western Australian Censorship Amendment Act 2003 also made a number of changes to the legislation to assist the Western Australia Police Service to enforce the legislation. However, despite the above changes, the Western Australia Police Service is still experiencing difficulties with certain forfeiture, evidentiary and infringement notice provisions contained in the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996. Members are aware that the government is committed to assisting the Police Service to crack down on the availability of child pornography, and to improve the efficacy of the enforcement provisions in the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996. I will now outline the measures in this bill that will address the problems identified by the Police Service in relation to the investigation of child pornography. The bill also contains the necessary amendments to evidentiary certificates and infringement notices, which will further assist the Police Service in its enforcement of the legislation. Child pornography - forfeiture provisions: On receiving information indicating that a person may possess child pornography on a computer system, the Western Australia Police Service child abuse unit generally takes out a search warrant under section 711 of the Criminal Code to investigate the disclosure. The police officers search the suspect’s premises and seize computers and any other property that may provide evidence. Upon the seizure of a computer, it is forensically analysed by the computer crime investigation unit of the Police Service. The unit searches the hard drive and gathers any images and evidence related to the alleged offence. It is usually not possible to charge the suspect with an offence relating to child pornography until the computer crime unit has completed its analysis. Subsection 117(2a) of the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996 provides for the forfeiture of films classified “refused classification” - RC - or X, and publications or computer games classified RC, or child pornography, seized under this part, if no person has been charged after 12 months. However, although this subsection applies to child pornography, it does not apply to material highly likely to be, or contain, child pornography. Moreover, it applies only to material seized under this part but not under a Criminal Code search warrant. Section 112(2) of the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996, which deals with entry, inspection and seizure, relates only to businesses and cannot be used for private premises. Although it was intended that subsection 117(2a) would apply to child pornography, the Police Service is required to comply with subsection 117(3) of the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996. However, this subsection requires the police to apply for a summons within 60 days of seizure. Moreover, under subsection 117(6) of the Censorship Act 1996, the court has the option of forfeiting the seized thing to the Crown - if an offence has been committed - or ordering that the thing be returned to the person who possessed it prior to seizure. It does not provide the court with the option of returning the thing to the police to enable the investigation to be completed. As it typically takes more than 60 days for a computer to be analysed, subsections 117(3) and (6) hinder police investigations of child pornography. To facilitate the investigation and prosecution of persons who possess child pornography on computers, this bill will overcome the problems being experienced by the Western Australia Police Service regarding forfeiture. Evidentiary provisions: Section 141 of the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996 provides that the Director or Deputy Director of the commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification can issue a certificate relating to the classification of a film, publication or computer game. Under section 87 of the commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Director of the commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification can issue evidentiary certificates regarding actions taken or not taken under that act. However, courts in both Victoria and Western Australia have disallowed such evidentiary certificates as evidence to prove that a film had been classified at the time of seizure. In January 2003, a Western Australian magistrate held that under section 141 of the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996, although a section 87 certificate could be used to prove that a film was classified on the date the certificate was issued, it could not be used to prove that a film was classified on the date of the seizure or alleged contravention. This bill amends the Western Australian Censorship Act so that section 87 certificates issued by the Director of the commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification can be accepted into evidence in relation to the classification of films, publications and computer games at the time of the alleged offence. Infringement notices: Section 117D of the act provides that a member of the Police Force or a designated person can issue an infringement notice to a person who has committed a prescribed offence under the act. At this stage, it is not intended for any person other than a police officer to be able to issue an infringement notice. Unlike other statutes, for example the Road Traffic Act 1974, the act does not currently enable a police officer to extend the period of payment for an infringement notice or allow a police officer - that is, a person who can issue an infringement notice - to withdraw an infringement notice. This bill amends the act to enable police officers authorised by the Commissioner of Police to extend the period of payment for an infringement notice or withdraw an infringement notice. New classification categories - films and computer games: As I mentioned, Western Australia is a full participant in the National Classification Scheme, which commenced in January 1996. Under this scheme, the commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification classifies publications, films and computer games pursuant to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, which is a commonwealth act. Western Australia, in conjunction with the other states and territories, adopts commonwealth classification decisions. Those decisions are enforced under the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996. The commonwealth act sets out the classification categories for publications, films and computer games. On 26 May 2005, the classification categories for films and computer games in the commonwealth act were amended to reflect the new combined classification categories for these articles. The new combined classification categories for films and computer games now cited in the commonwealth act are G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, X18+ and RC - Refused Classification. The use of combined classifications for films and computer games, based on the current classifications for films, will create simple and well-known classification bands for the community and assist parents in determining suitable material for their children. It will also create a more effective distinction between those classification categories that are advisory in nature - G, PG, and M - and those to which legally enforceable restrictions apply - MA15+, R18+ and X18+. This distinction will be achieved by the removal of age references from the unrestricted classification categories and the use of age references for the restricted classification categories only. Importantly, while the bill renames the classification categories, it does not relax the content of material that is permitted within each classification, nor does it introduce an R classification for computer games. The Western Australian Censorship Act 1996 refers to the previous separate classification categories for films and computer games. The classification categories for films in this legislation are G, PG, M, MA, R, X and RC. Computer games classification categories are G, G8+, M15+, MA15+ and RC. This means that the new classification categories in the commonwealth act are different from those in the Censorship Act 1996 and this will compromise the ability of the Western Australia Police Service to bring a successful prosecution in regard to films and computer games. This bill amends the Western Australian legislation to incorporate the new combined classification categories for films and computer games so that they will be the same as those referred to in the commonwealth act. As it was not possible to amend the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996 by 26 May 2005, appropriate transitional provisions have been drafted in the bill so that the new combined classification categories for films and computer games are deemed to apply from 26 May 2005 after enactment of this legislation. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Dr S.C. Thomas. *** House: Legislative Assembly CENSORSHIP AMENDMENT BILL 2005 Second Reading Resumed from 29 June. MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys) [1.06 pm]: I am very happy to lead the debate for the opposition on the Censorship Amendment Bill 2005. This legislation is a case of better late than never, but we have come to expect that from the government, which cannot seem to get its act together. It is important to place on record that this bill is before the house now because of the bill that the Leader of the Opposition introduced to address the loopholes in the legislation brought forward by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services; that is, the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. I apologise, but I have spilled my water. I now have a wet and soggy bill - a bit like the government. This bill will rectify those loopholes. I reiterate that that legislation was introduced last year. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services obviously was not doing her job properly, because she was unaware that schedule 2, class 2 offences, of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 referred to an act that does not exist. This was picked up not by the government, but by the opposition. The reason the Leader of the Opposition brought in a private member’s bill was to try to address that loophole and to ensure that the name of every sex offender went on the sex offenders register. That is the purpose of the bill. It is not the fault of the Minister for Justice; it was not his bill, but a bill introduced by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. For all the snide remarks the Minister for Police and Emergency Services directs at me - I can take it because I have broad shoulders - this bill addresses the haphazard way in which she introduced the legislation to which I have referred. It was important to mention that. Let us look at the sequence of events. I will refer to another piece of legislation because it is referred to in the main bill. The purpose of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act is - . . . to require certain offenders who commit sexual or certain other serious offences to keep police informed of their whereabouts and other personal details for a period of time to reduce the likelihood that they will re-offend and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of any future offences that they may commit, to enable courts to make orders prohibiting certain offenders from engaging in specified conduct . . . The Censorship Amendment Bill deals with two main areas. To a certain extent, the first is a housekeeping activity dealing with films, videos and computer games to ensure that they are correctly classified. This bill reflects the national scheme. We do not have a problem with that. The opposition will be supporting this bill. This bill will address what we on this side of the house believe are more appropriate classifications for some of these dreadful films, videos and computer games that should not be seen by children. At the end of the day, charges will be able to be laid against people who abuse these clauses dealing with the classification of films, videos, DVDs and computer games, and we support that completely. Some people may say that the penalties are not harsh enough, but that is something we can debate during consideration in detail. Another important area of the bill addresses the loophole that the government created in the previous legislation that it introduced, and that is charges relating to the investigation of child pornography. To make the previous legislation more effective, this bill simply renames the Censorship Act 1996 to the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996. That is just a different name, but it makes the previous legislation more sensible and relevant. It does not matter what this bill is called; it is what the bill does that counts. Almost every person in this house wants to ensure that people who download, store or distribute child pornography face the harshest punishments that this Parliament can lay down. Mr Speaker, as you are probably aware, in the past few weeks or months a lot of my time has been spent tracking down paedophiles who have been let out of our prisons very early - some, five years into an 11-year sentence, and, others, less than eight years into a 15-year sentence. I have spent a lot of time doing that because I feel so strongly about these people who commit crimes against children. I believe that anyone who downloads child pornography is a prime candidate for committing the crime of paedophilia. Those people are not downloading those images just to view them; that information will instil in their warped minds a feeling to act out the dreadful images that they see. I must be honest and say that I have never seen a pornographic image of a child or a sex photo or anything like that, and I do not want to; I think it might make me sick. However, I know they exist. I know there are a number of sick people in our society who get pleasure from doing this sort of thing. I do not know whether the member for Riverton, or whoever he is, is smiling at what I am saying or something else. Mr M.P. Whitely: Something else; let us not go there. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is fine, because I think the member would share my views. Mr M.P. Whitely: Of course. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am pleased to hear that. I think every member will share those views. At the end of the day, we must think of what sort of gratification these people get from doing this sort of thing. This does not happen only in Western Australia and Australia; it is worldwide. Some dreadful acts have taken place, particularly in some eastern European countries, where children have been not only sexually abused but also violently abused by people who may do it for money. I do not know, but if they did not have customers they would not do it because they would not make any money out of it. I have read quite a bit about this, but I have never seen a picture of a child being abused sexually or violently. Occasionally I get unsolicited e-mails. This is something that the minister needs to look into. As the minister is in charge of censorship, he should look into this issue, because occasionally I get e-mails on my laptop from all sorts of weird and wonderful people. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not know where they come from. Some of the people sending them must feel I have a deficiency in an appendage, because they are advertising all sorts of things that they say will make my life more wonderful. That sort of crap - if I may call it that - just gets deleted anyway. Occasionally these other e-mails will come through on my computer. I am going to ask someone in the Police Service what action can be taken and whether the sender of these e-mails, with their attachments, can be located. I received one the other day - I did not open the attachment, not because I am worried about viruses but because I have no desire to see the sorts of things that were being advertised as being depicted on the attachment - but I did not know what it was about from what was said on the bar. One does not always know what the e-mail is about from the initial message that one gets on the one liner. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Do you mean the subject line? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes. There is not always a subject line. It is just listed as an important message or something and I have to think whether or not to open it. I usually open the e-mails I receive but I never open an attachment unless I know where it has come from or I have a reason to open it. On an e-mail I received recently there was nothing in the subject line, but when I opened the e-mail it told me to go to a particular site. The web site was in blue, and if I clicked on it I was informed that it would open up some sort of Pandora’s box. I did not go to that web site, but what it said to invite me to go to that web site I found absolutely distasteful and disgusting. I cannot find enough adjectives to explain how I felt about it. It was about young teenage girls. These people produce these dreadful videos somewhere in the world - I do not know where they come from; they could be home grown for all I know - and send them through e-mails for people with warped minds to open. Plenty of people will open them. Whether they do anything after or not, I do not know. We need to find out where those e-mails are coming from. The minister responsible for censorship has a duty to do all he can to prevent those sorts of e-mails, with their attachments, from coming through. The minister may need to work with the police on that issue. I am flagging that matter with the minister today, because as the minister responsible for censorship, he should ensure that censorship is put in place so that decent people do not receive these types of horrific e-mails and attachments depicting the sort of child pornography that seems to be rife throughout the world. When the minister responds at the end of the second reading debate, I hope he will give a commitment to do something about that. I do not have my computer here today, but I am happy to show the minister those e-mails. Although I have deleted them, they are probably still in the deleted box. If the minister’s department or the Police Service can find out the country in which the e-mail was initiated and the owner of that e-mail address, we can do something about it in Western Australia even if its origin is overseas. If I am getting those e-mails, I would say that other members are getting them too. I am sure they are not just picking me out. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I am getting them. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Carine is getting them as well. I suggest that most members get those sorts of e-mails. I opened one once, because it gave the wrong impression. It was not child pornography; I think it was advertising some possible brides in Russia. I opened it by mistake, and it contained pictures of different Russian women, although they were not pornographic; they were quite pleasant photographs, from what I saw. However, this is obviously part of an international market. I do not know what is behind those sorts of things, and whether they are genuine or not, but they are the sorts of e-mails that everybody is getting now. Anyone with an e-mail account will be getting these sorts of messages with those sorts of attachments. As much as I am sure that these Russian ladies are lovely and would probably make good wives, I do not want details of them coming through my e-mail address. I prefer to keep things that I am interested in on my address. My wife would never forgive me if I responded to one of those e-mails - not that I ever would! The most important part of this, however, is the child pornography part, and that is what I want the minister to look at. For the benefit of this Parliament and for my benefit as well, at the consideration in detail stage I would like an explanation of some clauses of the bill. I understand fully the classifications and the reasons for reclassifying them, but we need to know about some of the other areas in this bill because they are very important. We will want to discuss the penalties for people abusing these provisions. I want to be assured that even video shops and some of the seedier little cinemas cannot abuse the classification system. We had a briefing yesterday with advisers from the minister’s department. I appreciate that briefing and, along with my colleagues who were able to attend, found it very useful indeed. Child pornography is a class 2 offence under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. I understand that, although some people think it should be a class 1 offence. A person convicted of a class 2 offence must be listed on the sex offender register for eight years. Some people would say that such people should be on the register for a lot longer than eight years. As I understand it, offenders must report to the commissioner at least once every year. I suppose it is down to the commissioner of the day to decide whether that person should be reporting more frequently than that. I understand from the briefing we had yesterday that if the commissioner wants an offender to report more frequently, then he must do so. For a class 1 offence, people are listed on the register for 15 years and must report all personal details. They must report where they are residing - if they move house they must report that to the commissioner - where they are working, and the registration number and make of the car they drive. If they go on holidays or move interstate, they must report it. This information is important, otherwise the sex offender register will be out of date. I am not sure that registration periods of 15 years for a class 1 offence and eight years for a class 2 offence are enough. We have recently seen some of the most horrific sex offenders released from jail. Some of them have served a pittance of their sentences, while others have served many years in jail. These people should be on the sex offender register for life. Class 1 offences are all detailed in schedule 1 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004, and are deemed to be the most serious offences. Class 2 offences relate mainly to people found in possession of, downloading, storing or distributing child pornography, whether as literature or images. I suggest that there is something wrong with any person who has engaged in that sort of activity. I do not believe what some of our do-gooders say - that these people can be cured if they do a sex offenders’ program and if they find God. I have already found God, but I would gladly find God for a second time if I thought it would save me two or three years of imprisonment. I would go to the chapel every week if I thought it would save me two to five years in prison. If I were in their shoes, I would go on a sex offenders’ program. I would do any of those things to get out of jail free. That is what is happening in our society. We are letting these animals - I will call them animals because that is what they are - out of jail and giving them the opportunity to commit these sorts of heinous crimes again. The length of time for which people who have been found guilty of a class 1 or class 2 offence are required to report is not sufficient; they should be on the register for life. People who have that sort of inclination do not just suddenly stop. It does not matter how old they are. We know of old men sexually abusing young children and that, to me, is one of the worst possible crimes. They should be on the register for the rest of their lives. We may want to discuss this in more detail during the consideration in detail stage of the bill. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: How does all this relate to the bill before the house? I cannot find any place where it fits in. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It relates to the bill, because this bill deals with changes relating to the investigation of child pornography. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: It is not the about the penalties; it is about the processes the police go through. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It relates to this bill inasmuch as it relates to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. It may be a long bow, but it is there. The two pieces of legislation relate to each other. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: I promised that I would not interrupt you, so I will not interrupt you. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is fine; we get on fine. However, that is the point I am trying to make. It is all part of this bill. This bill is being referred to and used under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act, so it is important that the bill before the house now be correct. It is important that this bill be renamed to reflect the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. Can the minister see that? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes, but we are not changing the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 in any form at all. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No, but the bill refers to a bill that does not exist at the moment. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Please continue. I will let you get on and not interrupt you again. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is okay. The member questioned it. That is why I am saying that one bill relates to another, so each bill must be good legislation. There must be a bill to which that one can relate. Until now there has not been, but now we will have that bill. When this bill is renamed, the offences provided for under this bill are all part of the same crimes as far as I am concerned. If the offences relate to child pornography, they are the same crimes. Clause 4(4) is a deeming condition that picks up those sorts of people we have been talking about. If that is not the case, the minister’s advisers have given the wrong advice, because that was their explanation for that clause. It is important, and it is part and parcel of the same crimes. The offences in this legislation are predominantly sex crimes. Whether they be distributing unclassified sex films, videos, DVDs and computer games or whether they be child pornography that can be downloaded from computers, they are all sex crimes. Of course, the new classifications will marry up with national standards. Films depicting violence can be pretty horrific, but the ones that affect people most are sex abuse films, videos, DVDs and games. The worst films, videos, DVDs and games are those containing violence and sex abuse. The more violence there is, the worse they are, but they are all dreadful things. We do not want people to see them, particularly not young people. That is why the minister has brought in the new classification. Western Australia handed over its powers to national censorship a few years ago. I remember our doing it, and that is not a problem, but the reason we must have this bill is not only so that Western Australia is in tune with national classifications and everything else, but also to reflect the legislation, such as the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act, which is now in place. These are all part and parcel of the same issues. I am glad we are getting to grips with this now. I will not spend much longer on the second reading debate because, as I have said, we support the bill, but we will want some explanation during the consideration in detail stage, which I am sure the minister, together with his advisers, will be able to give to us. My colleague the member for Nedlands also has a great interest in this bill. As a lawyer, she will probably understand some of the legal technicalities better than I. As a past prosecutor, she will understand some of the implications that some of these clauses will have. I am a fairly innocent, naive person when it comes to these things; I like to think good of everybody until somebody proves differently. However, my colleague has seen many bad people appear before the courts where she has had to prosecute them, so she will understand a lot of the detail much better than I will. I am very happy to admit that. My colleague the member for Nedlands wants to make a substantial contribution to this legislation, so I will sit down and allow her the opportunity to do so. I look forward to continuing a lot more informative discussion during the consideration in detail stage. MS S.E. WALKER (Nedlands) [1.28 pm]: The member for Hillarys flatters me. I do not think I will touch on many of the areas that the member for Hillarys went through, because he gave a very good overall view of what the bill is seeking to do. This bill comes under the justice portfolio in the Government Gazette; it is not one that comes within the Attorney General’s portfolio. Nevertheless, I have not had the opportunity to look at the Censorship Act before. The Censorship Act was always handled by the former member for Kingsley. She handled it during the time she was Attorney General and retained the handling of all matters pertaining to censorship when they came before this house, as I understand it. We support the amendments to the bill. I come to this bill with fresh eyes. This created in me an interest in how everything worked in relation to the commonwealth level and how the Censorship Act came to be in Western Australia. I have done a little digging around to see whether I can put this legislation into some sort of context. I am quite sure that the minister is across it. As the member for Hillarys has said, the bill does several things: it changes the name of the current Censorship Act 1996 to properly reflect its function under the national censorship scheme. The legislation will have the same name as the commonwealth act, as I understand it. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is the title of the commonwealth act. The commonwealth scheme was the subject of a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1991. It resulted in the general revision of censorship laws and administration throughout Australia. I looked back at what was said in the federal Parliament on 22 September, because that is when major changes were made to a whole variety of laws that we have scattered around the state in Western Australia. They are all pulled together under the one censorship act of 1996. I thought it was interesting to read the comments of the then commonwealth Attorney General, Hon Michael Lavarch, who said - The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill provides for the classification of films, publications and computer games. This is the forerunner to the Western Australian Censorship Act. He continues - The agreement of the states and territories to the bill proceeding provides a unique opportunity, on a cooperative national basis, to make Australia's censorship laws more uniform and simple, with consequential benefits to the industry and the public. I pause there to ask myself the question: what is the purpose of censorship laws? I will come to that shortly. He said - The bill is the Commonwealth's contribution to revising the current legislative structure in cooperation with the states and territories. When enacted, the bill will not be able to be brought into force until complementary state and territory enforcement legislation is enacted. The model state and territory legislation is currently being drafted. He went on to say - Australia’s censorship laws are in an unsatisfactory state. They comprise regulations under the Customs Act 1901 which, among other matters, establish the Censorship Board and the Film and Literature Board of Review, a Commonwealth administered Australian Capital Territory ordinance, and state and territory legislation. For many years, the Censorship Board has performed the classification function for films under state and territory legislation. There are considerable difficulties in administering the current laws as they are unnecessarily complicated and not uniform. With this background in mind, the Australian Law Reform Commission was asked to report on how the laws could be simplified and made more uniform and efficient while preserving the cooperative nature of the current scheme. The commission presented its report on censorship procedure in 1991 and the bill has been prepared in consultation with the states and territories, following the recommendations in that report. He said also - The bill will establish the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and set out the procedures for classification. I will come to that in a minute because that is relevant for Western Australia. He continues - Classification decisions will be made in accordance with the national classification code and guidelines to help apply the code. Both the code and the guidelines - The staff of the Minister for Justice have been very kind and cooperative; they have given me help so that I can understand it. He continues - The code and the guidelines must be agreed between the commonwealth, states and territories. I have a copy of that code. He further states - Under the new scheme, it is proposed that state and territory legislation will adopt, in enforcement laws, the classification decisions made under the Commonwealth act. This is important - It is the state and territory legislation that will, in effect, govern the submission of films, publications and computer games to the Classification Board for classification. It will also deal with the consequences, in the respective jurisdictions, of the different classifications given by the board to films, publications and computer games. The 1995 commonwealth act then established a new Classification Board and a Classification Review Board. It set out new administrative procedures for the classification of material and it provided for the classification of computer games. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected during the consideration in detail stage. It is important that members of the public who read what we say today understand the scheme and how it works for Western Australian citizens. In 1995, the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Intergovernmental Agreements commented on the 1995 act. That sounds very longwinded. Hon Phillip Pendal was a member of the committee that presented a report on the censorship bill which was then before Parliament and which followed on from the federal act. I am not sure whether the federal act had been enacted before the Western Australian bill was introduced into the state Parliament in 1996. The report states that the Western Australian government introduced the Censorship Bill into the Legislative Assembly in 1995, and that it commenced operations in this state on 1 January 1996. It consolidated into one act provisions contained in the following statutes: the Indecent Publications and Articles Act 1902, the Censorship of Films Act 1947, the Video Tapes Classification and Control Act 1987 and the Criminal Code, which deals with the classification and control of publications, films, videotapes and indecent and obscene articles and objects. The bill also incorporated new provisions dealing with the classifications and control of computer games and the control of computer services, such as the Internet. The committee to which I have referred comprised the then members for Floreat and Geraldton, the current member for Darling Range and the then member for Ashburton, who is now the Speaker. It is a very brief report but it is worth putting on record a couple of comments in it. The censorship bill was introduced - . . . after extensive consultation with the Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers as well as industry and community representatives. The legislation results from two agreements reached by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General. The two agreements are as follows - (1) This agreement involves all jurisdictions and is based on a revision of the Co-operative Legislative Scheme for Censorship in Australia which sets up the censorship scheme for the classification of films and computer games. The Agreement also provides that the Classification Guidelines can only be amended with the consent of all the Ministers. I am not sure whether that is still the case. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes. Ms S.E. WALKER: The report continues - The Agreement recognises that Western Australia will have its own legislation and will classify publications on its own account. As I understand it, that changed. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: In 2003. Ms S.E. WALKER: Yes. It continues - This Agreement is in the process of being signed by Ministers. (2) The second Agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia enables the appointment of the Commonwealth censor as censor and appeal censor for this State. This Agreement sets out the mechanisms by which the Commonwealth will carry out the censorship process. The Agreement may be terminated by the Minister at any time. Is that still the case? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: There is an agreement. I am not sure whether they have the ability to override it. Ms S.E. WALKER: That agreement was being drafted at that time. The Censorship Bill, as it was then known, was the first complete review - Mr J.B. D’Orazio interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: It was interesting to see how that came into being, how it changed at the commonwealth level and how it came into being in Western Australia. Censorship laws across Australia were like scrambled eggs. In Western Australia, a lot of old provisions were repealed. They were outdated and outmoded and provided only very light penalties. In 1996, the Censorship Bill, as it was then known, was the first complete review of the state’s censorship laws by the government in more than 20 years. As I understand it, prior to the commonwealth act a commonwealth censorship board classified films and videos for all Australian jurisdictions and publications for all states except Western Australia and Tasmania. Therefore, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board conducted the censorship for films and videos on that basis. The enforcement of the commonwealth act was left to the states and territories. At the time, I think the former member for Kingsley, Hon Cheryl Edwardes, was the Attorney General. I read the second reading debate, and noted that the former member for Perth, Hon Diana Warnock, was the Labor Party’s spokesperson. Although Western Australia was part of a scheme for classification of films and computer games, Hon Cheryl Edwardes said the government would not adopt decisions made under the commonwealth act. WA entered into an agreement with the commonwealth censorship board to be appointed censor of Western Australia and to make decisions under Western Australian legislation for films, videos and computer games. Is that still the case? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: There is only the central body; there is only Canberra now. Ms S.E. WALKER: Is it all done in Canberra? The then Censorship Bill allowed the WA minister to vary commonwealth classification decisions for films and computer games in WA. Was that repealed in 2003? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes. Ms S.E. WALKER: It is important to set it down on the record. In 1996, the commonwealth had no role in the classification of publications for Western Australia; the state minister had that role, acting on advice from the then state advisory committee on publications. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: I think that was repealed in 2002. Ms S.E. WALKER: In 2002, amendments to the act were made by the Gallop government through the Censorship Amendment Bill 2002, which enabled Western Australia to briefly become a full participant in the national cooperative scheme and made it consistent with other states and territories. It appears that we gave the commonwealth the power to classify our publications, and the penalties were increased. I think that is when infringement notices for less serious offences were introduced. When I attended the briefing for the opposition the other day, I was interested to know - as the member for Hillarys said, because I am a former prosecutor - about the offences and penalties under the current censorship agreement. I wanted to know which penalties were prescribed for which offence. Before I discuss that, I will briefly mention - I am sure we can go into this in consideration in detail - that although there is a commonwealth act, at the back of that act is a National Classification Code. I understand that in May this year a new code was tabled. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: A new classification code. Ms S.E. WALKER: I am sorry that I do not have time to speak on that in the remaining six minutes. I do not think Western Australian members of Parliament would know where to look for the classification code, what it entails or how we act upon it in this state. An example is that the code is attached as a schedule to the commonwealth act. The introduction to the guidelines to the classification of films and computer games, for instance, which is produced by the commonwealth, assists us in interpreting the classification or the codes. I will give members a very brief example of that. All the classifications are listed. The guidelines use the following hierarchy of impact: G is very mild, PG is mild, M is moderate, MA15+ is strong, R18+ is high and RC is very high. However, under the general category it states that the impact of the classifiable elements for material classified G should be very mild only. The code states - . . . The G classification is for a general audience. However, it does not necessarily indicate that children will enjoy the film or computer game. Some G films and games contain themes, story-lines or game play that do not interest children. There is then a list of classifiable elements. It is stated that the treatment of themes should have a very low sense of threat or menace and be justified by context; violence should have only a low sense of threat or menace and be justified by context; sexual violence is not permitted; sex and sexual activity should be very mild and very discreetly implied and be justified by context; coarse language should be very mild and infrequent and be justified by context; drug use should be implied only very discreetly and be justified by context; and nudity should be justified by context. That gives an example of where censorship has been heading and where it is today. I suppose I am trying to put all this into one speech. I will not go into everything that the bill does, but I wanted to make mention of the purpose of the code. The code further states - Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles - [Leave granted for the member’s time to be extended.] Ms S.E. WALKER: The code continues - (a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; (b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; (d) the need to take account of community concerns about: (i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and (ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner. The guidelines on consumer advice state - Except for G classifications, the Act requires the Classification Board to provide consumer advice about the content of films and computer games it classifies. (For G classifications, the Act gives the Board the option whether to provide consumer information.) This information helps consumers make informed choices. Therefore, when the Classification Review Board now looks at classifications in either the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia or the Northern Territory - Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Tasmania. Ms S.E. WALKER: It was Tasmania. Are all jurisdictions around Australia now involved in the scheme? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes; we are the last one. Ms S.E. WALKER: We are the last one. Did it end in 2003? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: I am not sure about 2003, but this one definitely. Ms S.E. WALKER: All right, about then. So the board looks at films, videos and computer games. Does it look at publications as well? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes. Ms S.E. WALKER: So the board goes to the schedule in the act as a starting base for the codes and then to the guidelines to help it make a decision. Is that how the board makes a decision? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes, there is a group of things listing them. Ms S.E. WALKER: Sure. However, I have not seen in the second reading speeches that I have read an explanation of how the board gets to its determination of the classification of material. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: There is a provision for the states to appeal a decision, and, upon receipt of the appeal, the matter goes off to another review. Ms S.E. WALKER: Does it go to the Classification Board and then to the Classification Review Board? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: There is a review that may decide that the original decision is final. Ms S.E. WALKER: I have a document that the minister tabled, I think, in May. Perhaps the people of Western Australia want to know what the classification codes are now. The principles are the same as the classifications I have just read. I would like to read these. There is a new schedule to the commonwealth act, the National Classification Code, that Hon Philip Ruddock brought into the federal Parliament for which I think I have with me the second reading speech. The classifications are RC for publications, category 2 restricted, category 1 restricted, unrestricted, X, R, MA, M, PG and G. I have already been through category G. Briefly, films classified PG cannot be recommended for viewing by persons under 15 years of age without the guidance of parents or guardians. Films classified M are films, except RC, X, R and MA films, that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons under 15 years of age. Films classified MA are films, except RC, X and R films, that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15 years of age. Films classified X are films, except RC films, that contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language or fetishes or depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, and are unsuitable for a minor to see. Does the RC classification mean that the films cannot be viewed at all? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes. Ms S.E. WALKER: Films classified RC are films that depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a person who is or appears to be a child under 18 years of age, whether or not the person is engaged in sexual activity; or promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence. The act goes on to refer to categories 2 restricted and 1 restricted. However, if members have read my contribution to the second reading debate, they would know about those categories. However, to understand how the Classification Board censors the films, they would need to read the guidelines given by the commonwealth government in that schedule. I will quickly refer to the offences in the 2002 amendments to the act, when infringement penalties were brought in for the first time. There are offences in the act and, like the member for Hillarys, I am surprised that the possession of child pornography carries a maximum penalty of only seven years. I would have thought it would have been a lot more than that. I have not checked the Criminal Code, but I may have an opportunity to do that before the consideration in detail stage. However, under general offences in the Censorship Act, possession of indecent or obscene articles carries a maximum penalty of only $10 000. Under section 60, the possession of child pornography carries a maximum penalty of only seven years, and that is the highest imprisonment penalty in the act. For publication offences, the highest imprisonment term appears to be 18 months - I am not sure whether that is mandatory - for the sale or supply of submittable or RC publications. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: This bill isn’t about penalties. Ms S.E. WALKER: I know that it is not. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: It is about bringing in changes. Ms S.E. WALKER: Sure, but I can talk about the act. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: I am just saying that I am happy to look at that as another issue. Ms S.E. WALKER: Yes, but I am allowed to make comments during my contribution to the debate on what I regard are quite inadequate penalties, and I am making that point. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Yes. I am not disagreeing with you. Ms S.E. WALKER: I know. We will get to what the minister wants to talk about. Ms M.M. Quirk: You are not the minister; what do you know? Ms S.E. WALKER: I give the minister a lot of respect in this place, which is more than I can say the member for Girrawheen gives members of this place. I refer to films and offences. If a film that is refused classification is exhibited in a public place, the penalty is only 18 months. I wonder whether some time in the future the minister will look seriously at the penalties in the legislation because I do not think they are strong enough. I understand that there will be some changes to infringement notices and that there will be changes to the name of the act, which is contained in the schedule. That will reflect the current name of the act. I understand that the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 was given assent in February this year. That act deals with the registration of sex offenders, including paedophiles. However, from 1 February until this bill is assented to the legislation will not capture automatically anyone who is convicted of a sexual assault offence or a sexual offence against a child. I ask the minister: how many offenders were convicted after 1 February or the date on which the act was proclaimed - I think it may have been 2 February? Of those offenders, how many were paedophiles? How many charges were involved? Who was not captured automatically by the mistake in that act? Does the minister understand what I am saying? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: I will try and find out for the member. Ms S.E. WALKER: Of those people, was any application made against them by the Director of Public Prosecutions, because there should have been? Mr J.B. D’Orazio: As I said, I will check the matter for the member. Ms S.E. WALKER: Aside from that, I do not have anything further to add until consideration in detail. MR J.B. D’ORAZIO (Ballajura - Minister for Justice) [1.52 pm]: I thank the members who contributed to this debate and I thank those who gave support to this bill. This bill is not aimed at looking at penalties; it is about fixing an anomaly that occurred because we are now part of the federal scheme, and classifications under the national scheme are different from those currently in place in this state. This legislation addresses that anomaly. The changes will be backdated to 26 May, when the new federal classifications came into place. That is the intention of the bill. At the same time, in doing this, the government has taken the opportunity to strengthen some provisions to try to control child pornography in order to lessen the difficulties faced by the Police Service in doing its job. The changes will give the police the ability to do their job better. They will ensure that the ability of anyone to possess child pornography in our community will be limited. Police will be given more power. It is quite appropriate that we do that. We are also changing requirements under the legislation for processes to be undertaken. The member for Hillarys made comments to the effect that he would like us to investigate everything from e-mail to the whole world. I understand where he is coming from concerning e-mail. I am told that that is already covered by a commonwealth communications act that deals with the improper use of a communication service. We all understand that no-one wants to receive disgusting e-mails. We will do whatever we can to come to a position of strength on this. We want to stop people receiving inappropriate messages. It is a position we all support. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are amending the Censorship Act 1996, section 60 of which deals with child pornography. Section 60(4) states that a person who possesses or copies child pornography is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for five years. I can understand copying, but if someone innocent like me receives unsolicited material through an e-mail, I am still in possession of it whether I want to be or not. I do not want to be, obviously. Technically, a person is guilty of possession if such material is on his computer system. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: I am not a computer expert so I am not sure whether material going through the e-mail system does go on to a person’s computer system and stays there. Mr R.F. Johnson: If the material is deleted, as I have done, it is still in the trash box. As the minister knows, experts can retrieve material that has been trashed, even if it was a long time ago. I did not open the disgraceful e-mail I received; the description was enough. It concerned sexual acts between teams of fathers and daughters. It was dreadful stuff like that. I did not open that e-mail or the web site; I deleted it immediately. However, I was in possession of it. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: This legislation does not cover the transmission of e-mails from one location to another; that is part of the federal communications legislation. Mr R.F. Johnson: But the act we are amending does; it comes under section 60, “Child pornography”. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Child pornography covers a lot of areas. What we are amending here gives police powers to hold equipment. It does not refer to the offence that the member is referring to. Mr R.F. Johnson: The act the minister is amending does. The minister is amending the Censorship Act 1996. It will be renamed but, under that act, the sections will remain the same apart from the ones that the minister is amending. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: The government is confining the legislation to very specific things. One is to change the name of the act. If the member is asking me to review the act, we can do that in a different process. We are amending the act with minor changes to bring the classifications into line with the commonwealth act, introducing different classifications for some films and computer games, and giving some powers to police. We are not covering the areas referred to by the member. The member is asking that his concerns be looked at as a separate exercise. The member for Nedlands referred to other matters. I am happy to take them on board at a later date. Mr R.F. Johnson: I wanted to get that commitment from the minister. Many people are receiving the disgusting e-mails with the even more disgusting attachments. They are deemed as child pornography. Most decent people do not want them coming into their homes through their computers. The minister is responsible for censorship and the Censorship Act. He is amending some of it today but he should amend some other parts. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: I am happy to look at processes we can look at. This legislation does not deal with those concerns. This legislation is very specific. Let us not bring other things into this. There is already federal legislation to control the sending of e-mails. The sending of obscene e-mails is the offence. The member is concerned about having received material on his computer. We will need to check that out under the Criminal Code and/or the Censorship Act. I am sure we can do that independently of this process. Mr R.F. Johnson: But under the act I am guilty of possessing it. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Under the Censorship Act, the member may be. We can look at that process independently of this debate. Mr R.F. Johnson: This is the main act. That is what I am saying to you. Don’t do half a job. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: I thank the member for Hillarys for extending this debate so that I can get to two o’clock and question time! Mr A.J. Simpson: The point is about jurisdictional control; that is the point about e-mails. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Communications is a federal issue and is covered under federal legislation. It is the appropriate place. This bill is very, very strict and limited to what we are doing. The ability for police to issue and withdraw infringements is a minor change that strengthens the current act. The amendment will not cause any great problems and should not have been there in the first place. This legislation will bring us back into line. The change in the name will resolve some of the anomalies referred to. Ms S.E. Walker: How will it do that? Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: I will continue my comments when we get to consideration in detail. Ms S.E. Walker: We wait with bated breath! Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Absolutely! I thank members for their comments on this bill. I look forward to the next stage. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. *** House: Legislative Assembly Consideration
in Detail CENSORSHIP AMENDMENT BILL 2005 Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3 put and passed. Clause 4: Section 1 amended, consequential amendments, transitional and validation - Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, under clause 4 - Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Dumb and Dumber are having a go again! It is Dumber, rather than Dumb, who is speaking this time. We have had it in this house so many times. The members for Perth and Riverton never learn; they sit there like a couple of monkeys. I said they were Dumb and Dumber, and the member for Riverton asked “Which one am I?” The SPEAKER: As the member for Hillarys knows, we should address the clause we wish to talk about. If he addresses the clause, we will proceed very well. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is what I wanted to do; I wanted to address the clause, until Dumber made a contribution. I will come back to the clause because it is important. This is not a hard question; even Dumb and Dumber would probably know this, but I would like the Minister for Justice to explain so that it is on the record. The purpose of clause 4 was explained to me in brief detail yesterday, but perhaps the minister can explain now, so that it is on the record in this house, the exact purpose of this clause, the reason for it, what it achieves and what it relates to. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Clause 4 renames the Censorship Act to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act. This brings us into line with the federal act, and what has been adopted by all the other states. It then brings in other legislation, which the member referred to earlier, in which the name of this act is referred to in other legislation. It corrects the anomaly. Mr R.F. Johnson: Would you explain this as a deeming condition? Yesterday it was explained as a deeming condition, because it picks up certain people. That is how it was explained to me yesterday. I just want the minister to explain exactly what that means. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Clause 4(3) will result in a reference in any other act or regulation to the Censorship Act 1996, unless the context requires otherwise, being read or construed as a reference to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996, which brings us into line with the commonwealth and other states. Mr R.F. Johnson: Who does it pick up? I was told yesterday that it picks up certain individuals. Will the minister tell me which individuals these are? Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: A previous act refers to the new title rather than the old title. By giving the act the new title, we have fixed this anomaly. Mr R.F. Johnson: We had a briefing yesterday. Several members interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: I have spent a lot of time on this legislation, and the three fools here keep giggling. I want to know what is being said about the legislation. I ask the Speaker to ask these members to go outside if they want to giggle. The SPEAKER: I was concentrating on something else. It is inappropriate to interject to the extent that people who wish to listen to the debate cannot hear it. If people do not wish to contribute to the debate, and they cannot resist speaking, they should leave the chamber. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: This clause picks up the anomaly that was created on 1 February and will exist until this legislation is enacted, in that the name of the legislation in another act was different from what the legislation is called. This corrects that anomaly and solves that problem. Mr R.F. Johnson: So it picks up people who |