What a week! A banned game, a banned porn DVD, a censored porn DVD, and BIG BROTHER: ADULTS ONLY dropped by Channel 10. At least the government has found a way to deal with calls for more censorship of the internet. 

******

The game version of Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs has just been banned by the Classification Board. This is the second game (after GETTING UP) to be rated RC in 2006.

******

The Hustler produced DVD, THE DA VINCI LOAD has just been banned in Australia. Gallery Entertainment was the applicant. 

Just passed in an X18+ censored version is the DVD of ROSIE AUSSIE COUPLES #12. FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd originally had it banned back in April.

******

Now we all complain about the censorship in Australia. However when the opportunity arrises to contribute to a review, it seems that those who call for less censorship fall silent. The pro-censorship groups get their act together, and submissions in. On the face of it the following review seems a very good idea. However this is not going to stop the usual suspects fighting any change to the present system. So how about getting yourself motivated and putting in a short submission. You have until July 21st!

The Attorney-General
Phillip Ruddock
Media Release 115/2006 
22 June 2006 

SIMPLIFYING THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS FOR DVDs

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today released a discussion paper on proposals aimed at simplifying the classification process for DVDs. 

The proposed reforms would allow trained, industry-based assessors to consider additional material often included on DVDs and make recommendations to the Classification Board on appropriate classifications.

Ultimately, the final decision on appropriate classification would remain with the Classification Board but the process would significantly reduce the regulatory burden on business. 

“Currently, additional features such as bloopers, deleted scenes and biographies on DVDs require fresh classification by the Classification Board – a process which can be cumbersome and costly for industry,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“The new model is based on the current arrangements for computer games which have been working effectively for more than a decade and I am confident it will maintain the integrity of the classification scheme.”

Submissions may be made to the Attorney-General’s Department until 21 July 2006. The discussion paper is available at www.ag.gov.au 

Simplifying the classification of DVDs: discussion paper - June 2006

******

BIG BROTHER is in hot water once more. Following political pressure Channel 10 has scrapped the final four episodes of the ADULTS ONLY show

******

Helen Coonan this week announced that all Australian families would be provided with a free internet filter.

******

Draper, Neville, and Joyce have had success in getting BIG BROTHER: ADULTS ONLY off air. However Ross Fitzgerald's opinion piece claims that maybe the pro-censorship brigades have their priorities wrong.

National will is being censored The Australian 19.06.06

A few weeks after the anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, all state premiers are presiding over a criminal justice system that prescribes a $25,000 fine for making and selling a sexually explicit film with no violence, but a fine of less than half that ($12,000) for making and selling a high-powered rifle or a hand gun. How many people would agree with the morality of this position and when did the premiers last poll their constituents on it?

It doesn't stop there. Advertising a federally classified X-rated film in our states attracts a higher penalty than advertising an illegal firearm. Guns have the potential to kill. Videos have the potential to encourage viewers to have sex. The morality is clear, but so also is the disconnect between legislators and rapidly changing community opinions.

******

Where would the Sunday papers be without the ability to wheel out the Australian Family Association to comment on the latest moral issue of the day?

A MELBOURNE strip club has upset a family lobby group by employing strippers to promote its services.

The strippers have set up Melbourne's raunchiest car wash in East Bentleigh.

A bus featuring a reclining, scantily clad woman is parked at the car wash to promote the Kitten Club tabletop dancing venue.

The Australian Family Association says there are numerous offensive billboards across Melbourne promoting brothels, strip joints and sex-enhancing products.

The association's national secretary, Gabrielle Walsh, said: "We're sick of it. We need to protect families and children from this advertising blight and that is not happening.

Kitten Club spokesman Angelo Dimozantos said the ad worked:

"Wait until summer and the strippers wash the cars in their bikinis."

******

A couple of weeks ago Judy Atkinson was blaming the problems in Aboriginal communities on access to pornography. This week she was back with more of the same.

Hard core porn plague. The Mercury 24.06.06

Ms Atkinson told a forum in Canberra that Aboriginal communities were saturated with pornography and the victims were children.

"There is a difference between a middle-class couple in Canberra watching porn and a group of young boys in some remote community in the NT who have no real access to education," she said. "If you're a married couple with no real problems, maybe a bit of soft pornography is even going to benefit you, but not up there, not where people are on the grog and on the petrol. It's a problem worse than alcohol."

Boni Robertson of Griffith University's Gumurrii Centre in Nathan, Queensland, who co-wrote a report on sexual abuse and violence in Aboriginal communities in 1999, agrees that it is a mistake to get sidetracked by pornography.

"I'm gob-smacked because it's such nonsense," she says. "It's the grog that's our problem, the grog. The statement that our communities are saturated with porn and that we just can't control ourselves, it just takes us back to that image of the black savage and it takes our focus off the real problem.

Australian Psychological Society spokesman Bob Montgomery says two significant international studies in Britain and the US have concluded "without any doubt that pornography is mostly harmless and should be freely available to adults who want to see it".

"Watching porn does not turn people into monsters," Mr Montgomery says. "It increases the desire to go home and make passionate love to your wife or to masturbate, that's all. A lot of people use it, and use it sensibly. And as for whether it's corrupting the young, well, look at the surveys. Almost all the indicators show that young people today are happy, healthy people with attitudes that are remarkably similar to their parents."

SEX CITY has been passed! After being cut a second time, it was finally rated X18+ on June 16th.

******

******

Phillip Ruddock has applied to the Review Board to have the Unrestricted ratings of eight books examined. 

All were passed by the Classification Board back in December. At the same time, a VHS titles JIHAD OF TERRORISM was passed with a PG (Mild Themes). All had been submitted by the Federal Police following a raid on a bookstore in Lakemba.

***

The Attorney-General
Phillip Ruddock MP
Media Release 104/2006
9 June 2006
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW TO CONSIDER HATE MATERIAL 

The Australian Government will push for censorship laws to be reviewed to assess whether they deal adequately with material which urges or advocates terrorist acts, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced today. 

"I have written to State and Territory Censorship Ministers advising them of my intention to raise the adequacy of current censorship laws at the next ministerial meeting in July," Mr Ruddock said. 

"The Australian Government does not consider material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should be available for sale. 

"I will be asking my State and Territory colleagues to consider whether current laws strike the right balance between freedom of expression and community concerns about promotion of acts of violence. 

"Freedom of speech is a right all Australians would fiercely defend so it is important to consider these issues carefully," he said. 

Mr Ruddock also has referred eight publications and one film to the Classification Review Board in response to community concerns about the dissemination of material which promotes terrorism. 

The material, highlighted in media reports as the so-called "Books of Hate", had been referred to the Australian Federal Police which found there was insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution. 

"This is an important issue and further consideration of the classification of this material is warranted," he said. The Classification Board classified the material in December 2005 and considered the material did not promote, incite or instruct in matters of violence or crime. 

Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Attorney-General may apply to the Classification Review Board for a review of a decision of the Classification Board.

***

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
9 June 2006 
MEDIA RELEASE 
Review announced for eight Islamic books and one film 

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the books entitled Defence of the Muslim Lands, The Ideological Attack, The Criminal West, Join the Caravan, Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah, The Absent Obligation, Islam and Modern Man, and The Qur’anic Concept of War and the film entitled Jihad of Terrorism. 

All eight books were classified “Unrestricted”, and the film Jihad of Terrorism classified PG with consumer advice “Mild themes”, by the Classification Board on 23 December 2005. 

The review is in response to an application from the Attorney-General. Under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Attorney-General may make an application for a decision at any time. 

The full Board of the Classification Review Board will begin meeting to consider these items from Monday 19 June 2006. In determining the classification of this material, the Review Board will ensure that a range of viewpoints are considered. The original applicant, the Australian Federal Police, will be notified. 

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. 

***

Ban hatred books Courier Mail 12.06.06

...civil libertarians say the proposed clampdown is an attack on free speech.

Mr Ruddock's push for tighter censorship laws follows raids by the Australian Federal Police on several bookstores at Lakemba and Auburn in Sydney.

But none of the books seized by the AFP, including titles endorsed by Osama bin Laden, were deemed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to have breached the Government's anti-terror laws.

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman said Mr Ruddock was using the excuse of terrorism to engage in censorship.

"Those people wanting to put out hate books are best dealt with by letting people read their books and see it for the rubbish that much of it is," he said.

"Once you start banning, you create the fertile underground that comes with banning and martyrdom."

Queensland's Fair Trading Minister Margaret Keech said it was up to the Federal Government to change censorship laws if it thought the legislation needed to be strengthened.

******

In the past few days The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift has been receiving much free publicity. United International Pictures had it passed with an M (Moderate Violence) rating on June 9th.

Fast and furious road fear. The Age 14.06.06

Police Minister Judy Spence today said she had written to cinema managers and encouraged them to place the Queensland Police Service pamphlets on prominent display while the film is showing.

"I am very pleased that they are enthusiastic and supportive of this campaign," Ms Spence said.

"Anyone who goes to see a movie like this, which is about high-speed and reckless motorcar racing, must remember that these scenes have been filmed on a movie set under controlled conditions and using professional stunt men and women.

"This is certainly not the sort of thing moviegoers should try out for themselves on the road."

Ms Spence said "impressionable" young men and boys may want to replicate the movie's dangerous driving stunts.

"I hope that through the promotion of road safety information, young drivers will feel comfortable talking to police, and therefore won't hesitate in the future if they need to contact police to discuss issues such as vehicle modifications, speeding, drink driving and licensing," she said.

***

Racing film revs up road safety concerns. ABC News 14.06.06

Queensland's Police Minister, Judy Spence, has raised concerns about a new racing car movie.

Ms Spence says younger drivers are at risk of imitating some aspects of The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.

She says road safety pamphlets will be available at cinemas to warn movie-goers about the danger of speed.

"I'm concerned that the movie will encourage hooning behaviour and that young people particularly will want to copy this kind of driving behaviour on our streets," she said.

"So the message is don't engage in these stunts, don't engage in these speeding pursuits, take that behaviour to the race track."

Ms Spence says she hopes the pamphlet will prompt young people to access the police website.

"We know that young people are particularly keen on using the Internet so I'm sure that if they pick this piece of paper up that a lot of them will go to the website and make that next connection."

***

Safety film to counter 'Tokyo Drift'. ABC News 15.06.06

Tasmanian cinema-goers will have to sit through a short road safety awareness film before seeing new car racing movie The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.

The state's Road Safety Task Force is concerned young people will try to emulate the characters in the Hollywood film about street racing in Tokyo.

Task force chairman Paul Hogan says a short film highlighting the tragic results of dangerous driving will be shown before each screening.

"We hope it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the movie," he said.

"But we hope that it does have impact, that [people see] as a consequence of your actions this is where you can end up - not having a life - because you've decided to do something rather foolish as a result of watching a movie."

The film has spurred the Queensland Government to distribute road-safety pamphlets at cinemas to warn movie-goers about the dangers of speeding.

***

Fast, furious film 'offensive'. New.com.au

Bathurst MP Gerard Martin, whose electorate plays host to one of Australia's most famous car races – the Bathurst 1000 – said the latest instalment of the Fast and Furious film series, Tokyo Drift, should trigger warning bells for parents. "What offends me most about these movies is they are based around stolen cars, illegal modifications and street racing – which communities right across NSW are trying to stamp out," Mr Martin said.

"In country NSW, in particular, we lose dozens of young people – mostly young men – to road accidents.

"Here is a movie that targets those teens and young adults, and tells them reckless behaviour behind the wheel is the stuff of Hollywood action and adventure."

"I'm urging parents to take an interest in the films their kids are seeing and, if it's drivel like this, do as much as you can to drive home the safety message," he said.

***

TAC slams drag-race film. The Age 16.06.06

The Transport Accident Commission has condemned films glorifying dangerous driving, singling out new release The Fast and the Furious as potentially putting Victorians at risk.

The TAC's road safety general manager David Healy, said he hadn't seen the film but the TAC was concerned about any product that glorified dangerous driving behaviour.

"Films like this primarily target young males, who because of their lack of driving experience and general propensity to take risks, already have an increased chance of crashing," he said.

"It makes it difficult for road safety agencies to improve the behaviours of young drivers when such contradictory entertainment is being heavily promoted to them."

But Clinton Joyce from Toyo Tyres, which has sponsored drift racing for three years, said he thought the movie would encourage people to try drift racing properly, on designated tracks.

"We are completely against (drift racing on the road), that's why we sponsor organised events . . . and that's why there's training schools and things like that because you can't just go out and compete," he said.

"In Australia, in the last three years its grown hugely."

Mr Joyce said at drift races there were always two cars going at the same time. The objective was for the cars to be as close as possible and to stylishly "drift" around corners.

Drivers also tried to get as much smoke as possible out of their rear tyres.

Judges evaluate each driver's performance.

Mr Joyce said he attended the The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift premiere in Sydney earlier this month.

"It's obviously going to appeal to the youth audience, guys from 17 to 24," he said.

***

Speed movie, plus warning. The Mercury 16.06.06

At Village Cinemas in Glenorchy yesterday, Road Safety Task Force chairman Paul Hogan, said the object was to address concerns that young people would copy dangerous driving seen in the movie.

"Young males are over-represented in road accidents -- they are a high-risk group. With this project we are reaching the right demographic," he said.

The award-winning Transport Accident Commission short film Swing, created in the Make a Film, Make a Difference competition by a 25-year-old Victorian runs for under two minutes and targets the 17-25 age group.

"It is a powerful film and makes the point about what can happen if you drive too fast and lose control of a vehicle -- you can die," Mr Hogan said.

"Emulating the action . . . in the movie could lead to movie-goers meeting Tasmania Police on the way home -- or worse," Village Cinemas state manager Matt Downie said. "It would be a tragedy if any of our movie goers were involved in a car crash.

"The movie publicity states that all the action and stunts are performed by highly trained drivers in controlled environments -- not Tasmanian streets and roads."

Infrastructure Minister Jim Cox said the message played an important role in helping to educate a captive audience.

"I only hope the young people watching these movies . . . are able to differentiate fact from fiction," he said.

"Young male drivers are our most vulnerable road users . . . likely to make up a good proportion of the audience for these films. There could hardly be a more appropriate venue for preaching the message that road safety is everyone's responsibility."

Swing will also screen before Tokyo Drift in Victoria and the ACT.

******

A 47min DVD titled 70K was banned on June 2nd 2006. The applicant was The Kingdom of Sad Machines.

******

More on the elusive R18+ for games.

Time to play hard. The Age 29.05.06

One man is preventing Australian adults from the freedom to choose their entertainment, undermining a crucial tenet of the classification code stating "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want".

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson opposes the introduction of an R18+ classification for games which would bring interactive entertainment in line with other media like films and publications.

******

Internet filtering was the hot topic during Senate Estimates in Canberra. The Labor Party grilled Telstra, and the Religious Right Family First Party went after the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

******

You have probably been reading about the problems in remote Aboriginal communities. Well guess what, porn is to blame! Hey, that means a quick easy fix. Just ban it! 

Judy Atkinson goes as far as to claim that it is:

".....even more lethal than alcohol"

To top it off she even wheels out the old snuff movie myth.

Ban porn in remote communities, urges academic. The Age 24.05.06

Judy Atkinson, director of the College of Indigenous Australian Peoples at Southern Cross University in NSW, said pornography was fuelling the problem of sexual assault in remote communities.

"People have got lots of DVD machines. Blue movies are brought into the community, they have become a commodity . . . and are even more lethal than alcohol," she said.

Dr Atkinson said research for a new study about indigenous violence suggests that hard porn including "snuff movies" (films depicting people being killed) was now being accessed by children. She said she interviewed a six-year-old Aboriginal boy who had been traumatised by a movie he watched with his uncle showing a woman being killed during sexual intercourse.

******

Philip Ruddock finally got around to answering John Murphy's question regarding SBS and the BLOODY MARY episode of SOUTH PARK.

******

As previously mentioned the control of OFLC policy is be moved to the Attorney-General’s Department. During Senate Estimates Senator Joseph Ludwig attempted to find out how this would work.

Speakers are:
Joseph Ludwig - Labor Party
Chris Ellison - Liberal Party
Robert Cornall, Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department
Iain Anderson, First Assistant Secretary, Legal Services and Native Title Division

Senator LUDWIG—The Australian Financial Review, Tuesday, 24 January 2006, under the heading ‘Ruddock threat to grab state powers’ states:

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has warned state governments that they should agree to more uniform national laws or face further unilateral action by the commonwealth to make state laws redundant.

Following the passage of the Howard government’s workplace relations changes ...

And states further:

‘Over time, we might find as the commonwealth powers—particularly corporations power—[are] tested that there might be a wider range in which the commonwealth is able to move’, Mr Ruddock said.

‘In the end you don’t necessarily achieve the rational outcome—

He seems to have gone into economics—

by jawboning. Obviously, I will be alive to whatever powers the commonwealth has if it will help focus people’s attention on effective reform.’

The article goes on, but I am sure you have read it. Have you given advice or has Mr Ruddock sought advice about the implications of the Workchoices legislation for the corporations power in those areas that I have referred to: personal property securities, defamation and other matters, including partnership laws and conveyancing? If a wider interpretation is given to the Constitution, particularly relating to corporations, will that be used or will that become available to be used?

Talk Senator Ellison—That is a question of policy to the extent that Senator Ludwig has asked if a court decision goes one way or another what will the government do.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—No, I asked have you got advice about that.

Talk Senator Ellison—Certainly the department gives advice to the Attorney-General. No doubt it has given advice on occasions about the corporations power and other constitutional aspects for a whole range of matters. But, I think if you persist with the questioning of the secretary, it really is aimed at getting an answer of, ‘We did advise on the subject and that is the possible outcome of the High Court’s decision and the effect on the corporations power.’ I do not think it is appropriate that officials go to that extent with the advice because that is getting down into the subject matter of the advice. I think that it is fair to say that any decision as to what the government would do post the High Court decision would be based on the decision. You do not know what the decision will bring up. In the reason for judgment, there could be all sorts of things that we have to address. So I really do not think we can take it much further than that. There is a report of the Attorney’s comments. I will take it on notice, provide it to the Attorney and see if the Attorney wants to or can add anything to that. I will take that one on notice but I do not think we can pursue this much further because it really is starting to drill into the substance.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—As I said right at the beginning, I am not seeking the advice. I have asked for it before and I know you will not give it to me so I am not going to ask for that. But I did and can ask for whether you have provided advice on that issue. I think that is permissible; it is certainly within the range of the advice that you can provide to say whether you have or you have not. It is entirely reasonable to ask, on a particular prospect or outcome of a case, if it goes one way of the other, whether the Attorney-General has asked for advice. The question is specific. It does not go too broadly. It is narrowcast.

Talk Mr Cornall—I am not sure that that is my understanding of that. The mere fact that the Attorney or the minister might have asked for advice on something and we had given in itself might be quite sensitive information in terms of development of policy or matters before cabinet or something of that nature. So I am not entirely sure that assertion is a correct statement of the position.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—It was worth a try, though.

Talk Senator Ellison—I can see what Senator Ludwig is saying. Normally, we would say to the question of did the department give advice on this: ‘Yes, they did, but the subject matter or substance we cannot talk about.’ But this is talking about something which may or may not happen in the future. I think the secretary is quite right to indicate that that could be more sensitive. It could indicate where the government is going or might go with its policy options. That is the cause for concern there, and that is the reason we believe that answering that could set a lot of hares running, as we know they do.

Talk CHAIR—I think that might be Senator Ludwig’s plan, Minister.

Talk Senator Ellison—Exactly.

Talk CHAIR—Far be it for me to engage in conjecture.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So I can conclude yes and that you are not going to tell me. That will set it. And no response was received—there is my answer.

Talk Senator Ellison—I do not think you should take that as acquiescence.

Talk CHAIR—I believe the minister said that there was nothing further to say.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Is the censorship issue now in 1.2 or 1.3? It has been brought back into the department.

Talk Mr Cornall—It is in Mr Anderson’s division.

Talk Mr Anderson—It is in 1.2 and it has been previously as well, because the department has had a joint policy role in classification for some years.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So I should ask it here. The broader question is: what is happening there? What is happening to the independence of the section? Has that now been drawn into the Attorney-General’s web?

Talk Mr Cornall—The independence of the classification board and the Classification Review Board will not be affected all. They will remain independent bodies with an independent secretariat and they will perform their tasks independently. The policy, administrative and support roles will be undertaken by departmental officers.

Talk Mr Anderson—There has also been no change to the fact that it is a cooperative scheme with states and territories. Any policy changes to classification have to be agreed with all jurisdictions.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Where will the policy advice come from if there is not a separate statutory office with its own staff? Where will the policy direction and the strategic work come from that is usually undertaken by a separate statutory body or a separate section—those types of things where you have the confidence of your staff to provide research and to go and seek direction under your leadership?

Talk Mr Anderson—I commented that it is a cooperative scheme. In each of the state and territory jurisdictions the policy advice is provided from a department of the state or territory, and that is going to be the case for the Commonwealth as well. The Australian government will have its source of policy advice within the Attorney-General’s Department.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—But that source of policy advice, how will it then be provided? Will it be provided through the department?

Talk Mr Anderson—The classification board and review board themselves have never actually had a role in the formulation of policy. That has always been a matter for governments and that will remain a matter for governments. So, while the staff of OFLC who have previously had an involvement in the development of policy and the carrying out of research will now be Attorney-General’s Department officers, there is no actual difference in how the policy work, in itself, will be carried out and the advice given to government.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—We have had a separate Office of Film and Literature Classification. Which functions, then, will be drawn back into the department?

Talk Mr Anderson—From 1 July 2006 the policy function will be entirely within the department.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—All right, just stop there. We are moving the policy department, which was in the Office of Film and Literature Classification—I am just trying to understand your earlier comments—to the department. When it sat in the office, whose policy did it reflect? It seems to be that you then say that it reflects the government’s policy. But if the Office of Film and Literature Classification is an office that has a policy unit, and that policy unit is being shifted back into the department, does it not then become the department’s policy?

Talk Mr Anderson—Since 2002 the department and the Office of Film and Literature Classification have actually shared policy responsibility for classification, so we have worked together on all policy matters in any event, and jointly settled advice to government. But, yes, that policy function will now be entirely within the department.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So you no longer have to work jointly with them?

Talk Mr Anderson—It is going to be very important to—

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Perhaps you could answer that question—

Talk Mr Anderson—I was going to say, Senator, not in the same way. We will still need to actually make sure that policy is appropriately informed by consideration of operational classification matters.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Yes, so you will not be working jointly with them to develop policy. You will develop policy within the policy section of the A-G’s department and then you will consult with the board, will you?

Talk Mr Anderson—Yes, there will certainly be consultation—and with industry and others, as is commonly the case.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Then, effectively, there will be a classification board and a review board without a policy section?

Talk Mr Anderson—That is correct. The office itself will cease to exist as an FMA agency in the longer-term.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Won’t those two bodies then lose an important source of policy formulation to inform themselves on these issues?

Talk Mr Anderson—They do not actually formulate policy for themselves. They apply the classification code in making classification decisions. The policy formulation is quite separate to the actual Classification Board, which has statutory appointees, and the Classification Review Board, which similarly has statutory appointees.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—What did the policy section do in the office of film and literature review board anyway?

Talk Mr Anderson—They developed policy considerations for government—not for the boards, because the boards do not deal with policy.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Was it independent of government in that process?

Talk Mr Anderson—It was an agency under the FMA Act and it worked jointly with the department on policy since 2002.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—It is not just for the government—it is also for the council of ministers too, isn’t it?

Talk Mr Anderson—Policy is developed across the jurisdictions that were part of the cooperative scheme. There is a SCAG censorship meeting that occurs regularly and there are meetings of classification officials.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—The short answer is yes.

Talk Mr Anderson—Those meetings will continue.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—But the policy will not be developed in the office as a separate and distinct entity from the government; it will be now developed within the government. Perhaps I do not see your point. Doesn’t it move from an independent area of policy advice, which provided policy advice to the council of ministers, to a government department as an internal policy advice mechanism?

Talk Mr Anderson—OFLC was a government agency that operated as part of government. Yes, it had discussions with state and territory policy areas. We have had similar discussions, and those discussions will continue.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So won’t we lose that as a separate source of policy advice?

Talk Mr Anderson—The function of OFLC was to develop policy for the Australian government.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—That is right, so that will not be in that area. Where will it be?

Talk Mr Anderson—It will be within the department, so there is no change in the sense that there is still within the Australian government a source of policy advice on classification that will work with other jurisdictions on classification policy.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—But it will not be separate from the department.

Talk Mr Anderson—It will not be separate from the department—that is correct.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—You do not think it will diminish the process of making censorship policy?

Talk Mr Anderson—I do not believe so.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So the day-to-day contact will be within the policy section of AGs, and it will be reporting to who?

Talk Mr Anderson—It will be within my division.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So it will be reporting to you within your division. The policy division which exists now, does it report to you?

Talk Mr Anderson—Yes, it does.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—In what way?

Talk Mr Anderson—The Attorney-General’s shared policy role is within my division currently; the OFLC policy people do not report to me—just to make that clear.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—No.

Talk Mr Anderson—We jointly agree policy if any proposal is being developed, considered or put up to government.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—We might have exhausted that policy. The change from the director of the Classification Board to where they are now part of the secretariat, their support, will come from who? You?

Talk Mr Anderson—We are still working through the exact detail, but the proposal is that the policy area come to the department from 1 July 2006. All the public service staff of the OFLC will become staff of the Attorney-General’s Department from 1 July 2006, but the other functions will come under the control of the department by 1 July 2007. The exact details of how the secretariat is going to work to support the boards is something that we are still progressing with the executive team of the OFLC.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So is there an outline of how it is going to be divided up? Issues like secretariat, support, research, speech writing functions—all those sorts of matters—where will they now reside?

Talk Mr Anderson—That is exactly the sort of detail we are currently progressing with the executive management of OFLC.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Where you do you think they are going to reside? Is there a view that the AG has of where they should reside?

Talk Mr Cornall—When you say reside, do you mean physically where they are based or whether they are in the department or with the Classification Board?

Talk Senator LUDWIG—All right, I will be specific: in terms of reside I mean who will employ them? Will they be employed directly by and responsible to Mr Anderson as direct line employees, who will then have to go through the OFLC, the board or Mr Anderson for work? In other words: do you have someone available to do this? Yes or no. Mr Anderson will have to oversee those staff, and so it changes the nature of employment. No longer does the OFLC have a secretariat, research or speech writers who they can direct and control. Mr Anderson will be in control of those employees and can say, ‘These resources will be available.’ ‘These resources will not be available to you.’ ‘Yes, we can help you with that.’ ‘No, we can’t.’ It changes the relationship significantly in my mind. I do not know whether you share that but I am curious to find out.

Talk Mr Cornall—It does. At the present time, we have an independent FMA Act agency with its own budget, its own management structure, its own head and its own responsibilities and accountability. That will change. The staff will become public servants. They will report. They will become members of the department. Outside of that will basically be the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. Yes, that is a change. We are presently working through the allocation of staff to particular responsibilities, but they will be public servants in the department.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—When you look at the independence and the ability to provide direction to their staff, for example, research direction, it appears that all of that will be lost.

Talk Mr Cornall—The point is that the Classification Review Board and the Classification Board really do not need staff. They perform a classification function. They make decisions on material submitted to them for classification. In terms of the administration function, that will become a departmental function. As Mr Anderson has pointed out, we have shared the policy advice role with the OFLC officers for several years now and that will simply become a departmental function.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Now there are two sources of policy advice; post 1 July there will be one. The public role of the director is to explain classification decisions to the community. Who will support that function? That will have to be directed to Mr Anderson for secretarial support, speech writing, policy direction and all of those matters. That function is significantly altered as well.

Talk Mr Anderson—The director will still actually need to be able to explain to the public the rationale behind particular classification decisions as he is the convenor for the review board. They will clearly need a range of support from the secretariat. I cannot say much more other than we are working through exactly what support they are going to require. It is not intended to in any way impinge upon the effectiveness of the Classification Board or the Classification Review Board in making decisions and in providing appropriate public explanation of those decisions.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—The latter you have not adequately explained. The director will need support through direct staff to provide that public face to explain things to the community. If secretariat support resides in the department under your control, then it is a significant difference from what currently exists where he can, or she can in future, exercise their ability to task their employees as a separate body. If you cannot see the difference, I think everybody else can.

Talk Mr Anderson—The mere fact that the staff are employed by the department does not actually preclude the director from being able to direct or control them. That is a question that we are working through currently with the executive team of OFLC in terms of what the needs of the boards actually are.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—But they will not be able to employ the staff directly or decide on the skill sets that they require. They will be all decisions that you will make.

Talk Mr Anderson—There is scope for delegations of powers to the director. That is a matter that we are still considering. I cannot actually say anything further than that.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—When will you finalise that consideration?

Talk Mr Anderson—We are working jointly with OFLC. The timetable is that those functions do not have to be under the control of the department until 1 July 2007. It might happen sooner than that; it depends. We do not have to do that immediately. We are working carefully through it with OFLC.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Was there any public consultation or consultation with the OFLC about the changes before they were announced?

Talk Mr Anderson—No, there was not.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Did they read it in the paper?

Talk Mr Anderson—Immediately following the decision there was contact with the director and very shortly after that, Mr Govey, deputy secretary of the department, did attend the OFLC and informed the staff. It has been an ongoing process.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Forgive me for not quite understanding this. If it is a usual change where you are rearranging the department or absorbing a section or an independent body into the A-G, I would have thought that there would at least be a consultative process, perhaps even some public consultation. But, rather, it has been done in a high-handed way: ‘You’re no longer going to have an independent body. You are going to be absorbed into the department. We’ll work it out later because the decision has been made.’ It seems to me that this has not been done in the way you have operated in the past. It seems to be a significant break from that process, unless you tell me that I am mistaken and that this is how you do it.

Talk Mr Cornall—We have not had a lot of occasion for this to occur in the past. The occasion that comes to mind is when Emergency Management Australia was moved to this department from the Department of Defence. That was done as part of the Administrative Arrangements Order. I do not believe there was any consultation before that was announced, when the AAOs came out after the 2001 election.

Similarly, after the last election, there were a number of changes in the AAOs with the result that, for example, I think the Oceans Office was absorbed back into the Department of the Environment and Heritage—I might be wrong about the detail. I think there were a couple of other small independent offices that were moved back into departments. So I think there are precedents for it, which the government has implemented in recent years.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Are you saying it is par for the course?

Talk Mr Cornall—No. I am saying it has happened in the past. It is not an unusual thing to occur if the government makes a decision to restructure some of the administrative arrangements. It is also in the context of the Uhrig review, where the government is looking to reduce the number of small bodies that it has and to move them back where it can to departments for more effective administration.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So you do not think it was administered effectively?

Talk Mr Cornall—I am just commenting that it is in the context of the Uhrig review, which has looked at reducing the number of small agencies and moving them back where possible to departments.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—What I am asking, then, is what decision was made—in other words, what motivated the decision to move it back? Was it simply motivated by trying to rationalise your resources or trying to save money? And, in those cases, why wouldn’t you have consulted first or at least advised them that that was the course you were going to take? Otherwise I am left with it being just vindictiveness.

Talk Senator Ellison—No, it was not. It was part of the Uhrig review, as the secretary said. The process is another matter, but the decision flowed from the Uhrig review. It was not that the government had initially set out to put this in place. There was a review, broad ranging. As the secretary said, that Uhrig review was looking to minimise the number of small agencies that had grown up over time. I think that that is a very worthwhile exercise.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Yes, but the Uhrig review recommended consultation. I do not know how you rely on that. You did not consult; you just did it.

Talk Senator Ellison—The process, as I said, is another issue. You said that the reason for it was vindictiveness. The reason for it came from Uhrig.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—You said it was the Uhrig review.

Talk Senator Ellison—We do not have to take everything on board Uhrig says, in any event.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—It recommended consultation and you did not.

Talk Senator Ellison—I do not see it is a problem at all.

Talk CHAIR—I am not sure we are advancing the position at this point, Senator Ludwig.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Thank you, Chair. Given that it has the potential to affect the national classification scheme, were the states consulted?

Talk Mr Anderson—We do not actually believe that it does affect the national classification scheme. It is simply a question of the administration of the Commonwealth agency. In terms of the requirements to consult with the states and territories, matters that go to the classification scheme—changes in policy, changes to the guidelines and things like that—are matters that are raised with states and territories and will continue to be raised with states and territories.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—So will you check back now that you have made the decision to see whether or not the states are happy with the outcome or have you done that yet?

Talk Mr Anderson—There has been discussion at SCAG between ministers.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—What are the states’ views about these changes? Have they made a comment about whether they are happy with the changes, happy with the outcome?

Talk Mr Anderson—My understanding is that they accept that it is mirroring the situation with their own arrangements for policy within their own jurisdictions where they each have policy within a department.

Talk Senator LUDWIG—Will you go back and talk to them about the secretariat arrangements when you finalise those to obtain their view?

Talk Mr Anderson—Only if it is a matter which goes to the classification scheme, rather than simply a matter about the internal administration of the Commonwealth part of it.

Talk Senator Ellison—Madam Chair, can I inquire as to whether we have reached any finality yet in relation to any of the two outputs we are looking at: 1.1 and 1.2?

Talk Senator LUDWIG—We have nearly reached the finality of 1.2.

[10.45 am]

***

The following day  Senator Linda Kirk continued the questioning, this time with Des Clark from the OFLC.

Speakers are:
Linda Kirk - Labor Party
Chris Ellison - Liberal Party
Des Clark - Director of the OFLC

Talk CHAIR—Mr Clark, thank you very much for your patience today.

Talk Senator KIRK—I want to ask some questions following up from questions that we asked the department yesterday about the absorption of OFLC into the department. I am interested in what effect the closure of the office will have on the day-to-day functions of the director of the classification board.

Talk Mr Clark—I cannot answer the details of that, because we are in negotiation with the department about the operational issues, but, as I perceive it, there will not be any particular change in the way in which the classification board, and for that matter the review board, conduct their business and make their decisions.

Talk Senator KIRK—So you are in the process of negotiation at present with the department?

Talk Mr Clark—That is correct.

Talk Senator KIRK—How far down the track are you? What sorts of matters are you discussing?

Talk Mr Clark—We are talking about governance models and what it might look like as people are absorbed into the department. We do not have a final decision yet but I would hope that some time next week we may come to something that we can work with.

Talk Senator KIRK—I understand that this is meant to take place from 1 July. Is that correct? It is not a very long time frame.

Talk Mr Clark—From 1 July is the policy function, until 1 July next year when it is the final integration. I hope it would happen well before that, but that is the final date.

Talk Senator KIRK—Under current arrangements, when you are giving policy advice, do you always produce a joint advice with the Attorney-General’s Department?

Talk Mr Clark—We produce a joint advice with the department, yes. It has been a joint operation with a memorandum of understanding in relation to the provision of that advice.

Talk Senator KIRK—So you have not actually provided separate advice as a matter of course?

Talk Mr Clark—No, we have not.

Talk Senator KIRK—In that sense, the shift of policy function is not going to make a very big difference. Is that correct?

Talk Mr Clark—It will not make a radical difference. Certainly, the intent is that there is a reference back to the practical application of policy decisions in relation to board decision making, and that is the critical thing that we are looking at now.

Talk Senator KIRK—Does your office currently provide policy advice directly to the council of ministers?

Talk Mr Clark—No. Papers are developed by the SCAG censorship secretariat but, once again, that is jointly prepared with the department.

Talk Senator KIRK—From 1 July 2007, the secretariat functions are going to reside in the Attorney-General’s Department, as I understand it.

Talk Mr Clark—The secretariat officers will be departmental officers reporting to the department, but they will be located in Sydney.

Talk Senator KIRK—Shifting from Canberra?

Talk Mr Clark—No. The secretariat function will be formed out of the existing officers in Sydney. The people who receive and process applications will continue to do that work after the new arrangements are in place and will remain in Sydney co-located with the board.

Talk Senator KIRK—Okay. So there will not be a significant change in that respect?

Talk Mr Clark—I expect not.

Talk Senator KIRK—So what is going to change? I keep going through all these matters which appear not to be changing.

Talk Mr Clark—I hope very little change, in the sense that I won’t have some of the day-to-day chief executive functions that I currently perform. They will be performed by departmental officers. But, apart from that, getting on with the business of making classification decisions will be much as it is.

Talk Senator KIRK—Is it proposed that there will be any staff redundancies as a consequence of the change?

Talk Mr Clark—It is not proposed to have staff redundancies. It is possible that a small number of people who may be offered a position in Canberra who may not wish to take that up might wish to take some sort of departure package. But, at this stage, that is not seen as being anything of a major part and certainly not one targeted at people losing jobs.

Talk Senator KIRK—How many jobs will be shifting to Canberra from Sydney?

Talk Mr Clark—We have not made any final decision on that yet. That is part of the discussions we are having.

Talk Senator KIRK—It is all part of the negotiations.

Talk Mr Clark—Yes.

Talk Senator KIRK—It sounds like it is something I need to ask more detail about next time round, when you have completed the negotiations.

Talk Mr Clark—I am very happy to provide the detail when we have it.

Talk Senator KIRK—Perhaps it would be helpful, because you said it would be in the next month or so, didn’t you?

Talk Mr Clark—I expect so, yes.

Talk Senator KIRK—Perhaps you could take some of these questions that I have raised on notice and answer them for me.

Talk Mr Clark—I am certainly very happy to.

Talk Senator KIRK—What involvement did your office have in the decision to make this change—to absorb the office into the department?

Talk Mr Clark—That was a decision made by government, so we were not involved in that decision.

Talk Senator KIRK—Not consulted, not asked about it?

Talk Mr Clark—No.

Talk Senator KIRK—When did you become aware of the decision?

Talk Mr Clark—The Attorney-General spoke to me on 21 February and informed me of the decision. A letter came after that conversation.

Talk Senator KIRK—You said that was on the 21st.

Talk Mr Clark—On Tuesday the 21st.

Talk Senator KIRK—Then the public announcement was made on the 24th.

Talk Mr Clark—That is correct.

Talk Senator KIRK—If you had been consulted, what would you have said?

Talk CHAIR—I think that is asking the officers to engage in hypotheticals. If someone offers me a million dollars, what am I going to say?

Talk Senator KIRK—No. It is a matter of fact.

Talk CHAIR—Unfortunately, that is not the business of estimates.

Talk Senator KIRK—No. My question was whether or not these changes are going to impact upon the work. It is not hypothetical.

Talk CHAIR—No. Your question was, ‘If you had been, what would you have said?’ That is not a question the officer can answer. If you would ask a question the officer can answer, that would be good.

Talk Senator Ellison—It is hypothetical; it is policy.

Talk Senator KIRK—It is policy, rather than hypothetical.

Talk CHAIR—It is hypothetical and it is policy. The minister has confirmed that is the case.

Talk Senator KIRK—I would be happy to receive the information you give me so I can find out more detail. Thank you.

Talk Mr Clark—It is a pleasure, Senator.

Talk CHAIR—Thank you. That seems to conclude the questions. Thank you, Mr Clark, gentlemen.

[9.44 pm]

******

Calvista have just had the DVD of SEX CITY banned by the Classification Board. This Pierre Woodman directed feature is a hardcore version of SIN CITY. Once again it looks like any adult title that attempts a plot falls victim to our censors.

******

Eros Magazine Vol.7 No2 is out now. Subscription information, and a selection of some of the articles can be found here.

Yasmin Element and Craig Brittain take a look back at 70's porn and ask the question:

Where is all the 70s Porn in Oz?

Unlike in America, most of the classic adult film titles disappeared completely from the shelves in Australia when DVD replaced VHS. Unfortunately, so much is excluded in the new X classification in Australia that a lot of these films would probably have trouble with classification here now. In fact there are only a handful of classic 70s features and compilations that are classified and legally available for adult consumers in Australia at the moment. So if you’ve got old favourites on VHS keep hold of them. The chances of them ever being legally available here on DVD are slim.

***

To coincide with the Perth Sexpo, Eros issued the following press release detailing the porn situation in W.A.

Eros
Press Release
Friday, 05 May 2006 
W.A. Sex and Censorship Laws Need Urgent Reform: Eros calls for action over minors selling porn.

Australia’s national adult retail association, the Eros Association, has released sales figures and community opinion data for the opening of Perth Sexpo, which shows that W.A. is not adopting the national censorship code to which it is a signatory and that a large gap exists between the way in which West Australians want to see adult material sold and the way in which past and present governments regulate this retail environment. Eros CEO Fiona Patten said that under a State and Commonwealth arrangement, all states in Australia agreed to adopt the National Classification Code but W.A. had refused to do this and adopted the position that people living in Western Australia had a different sexual morality from other average ‘Australians’.

Ms Patten said that West Australians had demonstrated in many ways their acceptance of and willingness to buy non violent erotic, X rated films that had been classified by the Howard government as acceptable to the ‘reasonable (Australian) adult’ but both past and present state governments had continued to prohibit that sale. The W.A. Attorney General had even signed off on a joint State/Commonwealth document in 2002 to create a new set of Guidelines for the X category but then refused to have it at home. This was hypocritical and confusing to people in W.A. It also strengthened the argument that W.A. politicians see their constituents as having a different morality from others in the Commonwealth.

Ms Patten said that the inability of W.A. governments to understand public opinion on sexual morality and censorship was at the basis of their misguided beliefs that minors in W.A. still had a right to sell hardcore pornography through newsagents and other family outlets. “ We estimate that there are some 300 children legally selling X rated magazines (called Category 2 Restricted) to adults from family businesses in W.A. who should not be handling this material at all”, she said. “The ridiculous situation is that the government says its OK for minors to handle X rated material in book form but then turns around and bans the sale of this same material to adults on video or DVD. This is not in line with demonstrated community opinion”.

Adultshop.com CEO, Malcolm Day, said “Per capita, West Australians purchase nearly four times as many X rated films off my company’s web site (based in the ACT) than any other state. The effect of this on a Perth-based company is to simply force revenue out of WA while causing customers and shareholders alike to develop a disdain for the state’s censorship laws and for the governments who implemented it.”

Media Contact: Fiona Patten, 0413 734613.

The Facts:

******

Gordon Moyes from the Christian Democratic Party is concerned what the kids are watching in class.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard
8 March 2006
Subjects: Education; Films; Censorship 
Speakers: Moyes Reverend The Hon Dr Gordon; Hatzistergos The Hon John 
Speech Type: QWN; Questions Without Notice 
Commentary: Answered on 2 May 2006 by John Hatzistergos

PRIMARY SCHOOLS M15+ FILMS PRESENTATION 
Page: 21186

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of conflicting policies on the presentation of M15+ films to primary school students? In particular, is the Minister aware that the latest excursion policy released in 2004 allows for M15+ films to be shown to primary school students while a more detailed memorandum to principals, entitled "Use of Videos in Schools", that currently remains in force, expressly forbids showing M15+ films to under-age children? Is the Minister aware that the conflicting policies have created much angst and some confusion between parents and principals? What is the correct policy on showing M15+ films to primary schoolchildren, most of them under 11 years of age, when the law says they must be restricted to people over the age of 15 years? What will the Minister do to correct the discrepancy?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The last time I visited this issue was when I was Minister for Justice and looking into what ratings we gave prisoners in respect of the videos they saw in prison. I cannot say that I am familiar with the school policy, but I will take the question on notice and obtain an answer from the Minister for Education and Training.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard (Proof) 
Extract from Transcript of Hansard 02/05/2006 (Article No.40)

PRIMARY SCHOOLS M15+ FILMS PRESENTATION Page: 29 

On 8 March 2006 Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice regarding primary schools M15+ film presentations. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

Since the Use of Video in Schools Memorandum was issued in 1998, the Office of Film and Literature Classification has changed its classifications. However, the meaning of the classification markings has not changed. The correspondence is still there with the G, PG and M ratings but the MA and R are reinforced as legally restricted with the MA15+ and R18+ additions to the codes.

The Memorandum to Principals, Use of Videos in Schools is the current policy document in relation to the viewing of films, including videos and DVDs.

The Memorandum to Principals, Use of Videos in Schools states explicitly that films classified as M or MA (MA15+) should only be provided for students who are 15 years and over and parents should be informed in writing before a video rated M or MA (MA15+) is shown and provided with the opportunity to withdraw their child from the viewing.

Material rated R (R18+) is not to be shown to students in schools under any circumstances.

The Excursion Policy (2004) relates to all educational excursions and includes a section 6.1.2 Film Screenings and Live Performances. This section states explicitly that students should not attend R18+ (R) classifications and that the MA15+ (MA) classification is legally restricted.

This section also states that parents and caregivers must be informed of the classification of the film or live performance to be viewed as part of the excursion and provided with the opportunity to withdraw their child.

The Excursion Policy (2004) does not explicitly refer to an M rated live performance or film screenings but this document should be read in conjunction with the policy referred to in the Memorandum to Principals, Use of Video in Schools because the Excursion Policy does not supersede the policy contained in the memorandum.

No primary age students should be shown films or live screenings that are rated M or MA15+ (MA).

A censored version of BELLADONNA: FETISH FANATIC 2 has been passed X18+. The original submission was banned last month.

******

Some new appointments, and some re-appointments have been announced for the Review Board and Classification Board.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
Media Release 68/2006
27 April 2006 
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointment of Ann Stark as a member of the Classification Review Board. 

The Classification Review Board is responsible for reviewing Classification Board decisions regarding films, publications and computer games on behalf of the Australian, State and Territory Governments. 

Ms Stark’s appointment will bring child psychology expertise to the Classification Review Board’s deliberations and helps ensure membership of the Classification Review Board is broadly representative of the Australian community. 

In making classification decisions, Classification Board and Classification Review Board members are required to apply the Classification Act, the National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines to reflect as objectively as possible what is considered to be the standards of reasonable adults in the community. 

Ann Stark, 53, is a clinical psychologist and mother of two children, residing in Hobart. Ms Stark currently works in private practice specialising in family therapy. She has served as an expert reporter in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court on issues relating to the welfare of children, and lectures at the University of Tasmania in counselling, family therapy and developmental issues. She has extensive involvement in a number of community organisations. 

“I am pleased that Ms Stark has agreed to serve on the Review Board, particularly considering her many years of experience working as a psychologist in the area of child welfare,” Mr Ruddock said. 

The appointment is effective immediately and will conclude in April 2009.

 Mr Ruddock also announced today the re-appointment of Paul Hunt as Deputy Director of the Classification Board and three members, Jeremy Fenton, Alexandra Green and Rodney Smith. The reappointments are all effective from 28 May 2006.

 Mr Hunt’s appointment is for a further year and will expire in May 2007. Mr Fenton, Ms Green and Mr Smith are each appointed for four years, and their terms will expire in May 2010.

 “With the reappointment of Mr Hunt and the three members, the Classification Board will retain valuable experience and guidance while remaining broadly representative of the Australian community,” Mr Ruddock said. 

Paul Hunt, 38, joined the Classification Board from the Kimberly region of Western Australia with a background in building and management roles in environmental health. He was originally appointed to the Board as a senior classifier in June 2000, then as Deputy Director in May 2003. He holds an Executive MBA. Mr Hunt has extensive experience as a senior member of the Classification Board, a high level of classification expertise and well-developed knowledge of the entertainment industry. He has been highly effective in the role of Deputy Director. 

Jeremy Fenton, 35, joined the Classification Board from Dunoon, NSW, and was previously the regional co-ordinator for training services for a non-profit employment and training organisation based in Lismore, NSW. He had broad interaction within his local community through extensive involvement in community radio in the Lismore area. Mr Fenton has been a highly effective member of the Board, with a strong record of contribution including periodically acting as a Senior Classifier. 

Alexandra Greene, 29, joined the Classification Board from the Gold Coast. Ms Greene is an admitted legal practitioner and previously worked as a commercial solicitor on the Gold Coast and as an Assistant Legal Officer with the Queensland Police Service. She also worked in the retail and entertainment sectors while completing her tertiary studies. Ms Greene’s work on the Board over her term has been well regarded and she has acted on occasions as a Senior Classifier. 

Rodney Smith, 36, is originally from Launceston. Prior to joining the Board in May 2003, Mr Smith worked as a journalist for local newspapers and the ABC in Tasmania, before joining the Sunday Telegraph in Sydney. As a Board member, Mr Smith holds a sound record of decision making, has experience as a Senior Classifier and has contributed significantly to the work of the Board. 

Back in February it was announced that control of OFLC policy would be moved to the Attorney-General’s Department. At the time this grab for power received little, or no media comment. Now it looks like staff at the OFLC are far from happy with this decision and the the Community and Public Sector Union has become involved.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
Media Release 023/2006
23 February 2006 
New Administrative Arrangements for Classification.

The Classification Board and Classification Review Board will be separated from the other functions of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) under new administrative arrangements introduced by the Australian Government. 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced today the OFLC’s policy and administrative functions will be folded into the Attorney-General’s Department. 

The Classification Board and Classification Review Boards will continue to make classification decisions, serviced by a secretariat from the Attorney-General’s Department. 

“The important work of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board in informing the entertainment choices of Australians will be unchanged,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“Classification decisions will continue to be made by independent Boards,” he said. The National Classification Scheme – a cooperative arrangement under which the Classification Board classifies films, computer games and certain publications on behalf of the States and Territories – will not be affected. 

“The Commonwealth will continue to consult fully with the States and Territories on matters of classification policy and in relation to appointments to the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board,” he said. 

“I have written to State and Territory Censorship Ministers to inform them of the new arrangements.”

The positions of Director and Deputy Director of the Classification Board, and Convenor of the Review Board, will remain. 

“Both the current Director, Des Clark, and Deputy Director Paul Hunt have provided excellent service and will be closely involved with my Department in developing the transitional arrangements,” Mr Ruddock said. 

A staged transition process is expected to be completed by 1 July 2007. 

***

All CPSU members: Independent classification system at stake 
13 April 2006
www.cpsu.org.au

The recent decision to abolish Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) raises serious concerns about the future of an independent classification system that is in touch with community values and free from political interference.

Commonwealth Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock recently announced the policy and administrative functions of the OFLC would be relocated to the Attorney General's Department (AGD) in a process to be completed by 1st July 2006.

The decision was announced without consultation with key stakeholders including key industry groups, state and territory governments who share responsibility for classification and censorship in partnership with the Commonwealth, and OFLC staff.

Classification staff have expressed a number of issues and concerns at this move by the Attorney General. This places a question mark over the continued existence of an independent classification review process, at arms length from government. Further questions have been raised as to the transparency of the decision given the lack of consultation prior to the government's announcement. The changes will also impact on staff, with transitional arrangements unclear and the prospect of job losses.

Independence at stake: CPSU has spoken to staff about their issues in concerns. As a result of these discussions, the union has produced an issues paper that covers the decision making process and the possible implications for the community at large. You can download a copy of the issues paper here.

Have your say: Classification and censorship are issues that affect everyone. Have your say by e-mailing us at cpsunews@cpsu.org.au

Contact Details Community and Public Sector Union Ph: 1300 137 636 Fax: 1300 137 646

***

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
NEWS RELEASE 
20 April 2006 
066/2006 

CPSU MISREPRESENTS OFLC ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES 

Union concerns regarding the new administrative arrangements for the national classification scheme are without substance and the impact of the changes has been misrepresented, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today. 

The new arrangements involve the transfer of policy and administrative functions from the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) to the Attorney-General’s Department and will not impact on the independence of the decisions of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. 

The OFLC, which comprises public servants and is headed by the Director, has no role in classification decision making. 

Independent board members classify films, computer games and publications. The members are broadly representative of the Australian community and make their decisions based on the Act, Code and Guidelines agreed to by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers.

The facts are: 

• Ministers (Commonwealth, State and Territory) decide classification policy, not the OFLC or the Board. The process for agreeing to changes to the classification tools is also unchanged by the new administrative arrangements. 

• State and Territory Censorship Ministers receive policy advice from their respective Departments. 

• Policy advice to Censorship Ministers will continue to be informed by extensive consultation with the Boards, industry and members of the public. 

• Locating the policy and administrative functions of the OFLC within the Attorney-General’s Department will ensure that the Boards remain, and are more clearly seen to be, independent in their decision making. 

• The OFLC and AGD already have joint responsibility for policy advice and development for consideration by Ministers. 

• Information about employment conditions has been provided to OFLC staff. 

• AGD staff have met with OFLC staff to facilitate the process for integration. 

“The government is concerned that the community should have the facts in this matter, rather than conjecture,” Mr Ruddock said. 

******

Calvista have just had the Gay Hardcore DVD FALLEN ANGEL 1 banned by the Classification Board. FALLEN ANGEL III - INITIATION escaped with an X18+.

Atari and the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia have decided against challenging the GETTING UP: CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE ban. The IEAA have just issued this media release explaining the reasons.

******

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
3 April 2006 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Ice Age: The Meltdown classified PG upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Ice Age: The Meltdown is classified PG with the consumer advice, “Mild scenes of menace”. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Ice Age: The Meltdown warrants a PG classification because there is a mild sense of threat pervading the film. 

“The world that the animals are used to is ending and the film dramatically depicts this dislocation and sense of loss,” said Classification Review Board Convenor, Ms Maureen Shelley. “The overall impact of the film exceeds the very mild impact test for the G classification and may not be suitable for some very young children.” 

PG means “Parental guidance recommended”. It is not recommended for viewing by persons under the age of 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. The classification means that the film may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting and may require guidance.

 The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors, to review the PG classification of Ice Age: The Meltdown made by the Classification Board on 22 March 2006. 

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

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

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