Australian Censorship News: May 2007

UPDATES 28th May 2007
Lithgow Adult Store Challenge.
Steve Fielding's Porn Obsession.
GOD IS NOT GREAT Book.
DEBBIE DOES DALLAS AGAIN: RC
JACK'S POV 6: RC
FACE FUCKING INC: RC
INTERNAL ANAL PLEASURE: RC
DD BRA BUSTERS VOL 1 NO 1
PICTURE PREMIUM #106: Modified
Porn in the NT.
Donald McDonalds Appointment.
CONTENT SERVICES BILL.

UPDATES
28th May 2007

Lithgow Adult Store Challenge

The Religious Right are again out and about trying to prevent Adult Stores from opening. This time it is in Lithgow with the shadowy Exclusive Brethren sect offering council funding to challenge a planning application

The Eros Association
Lithgow Council in Sex Shop Scandal
Thursday, 24 May 2007

Media Release 18.5.07

Members of the Exclusive Brethren, a religious sect recently accused of secretly involving itself in national and state politics, are now trying to influence local governments. In an unprecedented move, sect members have offered to fund Lithgow Council’s legal costs in dealing with an application for a local adult shop.

The Flirt Adult store recently won it’s appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s refusal to grant it a Development Application to set up in the main street of town. At its May7th Policy Meeting, Council announced that it was considering appealing the Land and Environment Court decision to the Supreme Court – in itself, an unprecedented action for a Council to take. An offer was then made by a local businessman, known to be one of the Exclusive Brethren, to fund a barrister to help Council put the appeal together. Council responded to this by saying, “Council Officers have undertaken an investigation and there would not appear to be any impediment to Council receiving a donation”.

Eros Association CEO, Fiona Patten, said that Council had severely undermined its independence in planning matters by stating that they would accept the money and that many people would consider this as tantamount to a form of bribery. “Everyone knows that it is the Exclusive Brethren who are behind this offer and that it is a religious sect trying to buy influence and favor for its moral agenda”, she said. “Unless Council has some world shattering information about the adult shop that no one else knows, they should not be appealing a Land and Environment case on what is essentially moral grounds”.

Ms Patten said that Council’s reasons for appealing the decision were not based on a desire for good planning outcomes but rather on the moral agendas of a few councillors. “As an example, they claim that the adult shop must have a disabled toilet but then say that the shop has to be above or below street level”, she said. “ How do they think people in wheelchairs are going to get up and down the stairs to even use the toilet? This is not rational planning policy”.

Exclusive Brethren members were involved in recent election campaigns in Tasmania against the Greens where they towed severed pigs heads behind cars with anti Green statements. In the 2004 Federal election the Exclusive Brethren supported the National Party candidate and Baptist church minister, Robert Griffith, in his campaign for the seat of Calare. Griffith emailed supporters declaring that: “The Plymouth Brethren have been convicted by God to get more involved on the political front. The Brethren do not want to be public and too up front about this, so keep it to yourselves, but praise God from whom such miracles flow!”

Ms Patten said that the people of Lithgow would be far more tolerant of a modern, couples-oriented, adult shop than of a meeting place for members of the Exclusive Brethren.

She said that the NSW Department of Local Government had asked its Investigations and Review Branch to look into the matter and she hoped that this issue of local government funding sources from religious and morals groups would be looked at more strenuously.
In particular she hoped the Investigations Branch would look at any involvement with local councils around Australia and the Exclusive Brethren’s national accounting and business equipment company, National Office Assist.

Media – Fiona Patten: 0413 734 613

***

Exclusive Brethren 'meddling' in council affairs. The Age 20.05.07

Mayor Neville Castle said council was considering appealing the Land and Environment Court decision to the Supreme Court.

At a policy meeting earlier this month, council announced it was considering appealing the Land and Environment Court decision and a local businessman then offered to pay for a barrister.

Council investigations found there appeared to be no impediment to the local authority receiving such a donation, Mr Castle said.

Mr Castle said he did not know whether the businessman was a member of the Exclusive Brethren.

He said the council's general manager, Paul Anderson, discussed the funding possibility with "the people" behind the offer last week.

Mr Castle says the council opposes the sex shop on planning grounds, not on moral principles.

"So if anybody else was willing to fund an appeal it'd be based on the same (planning) lines," Mr Castle said.

******

Steve Fielding's Porn Obsession

Family First's Steve Fielding scored something of a coup when during Senate Estimates he managed to persuade Helen Coonan to come and join him to:

"feast on a diet of sickening porn"
Steve Fielding
MEDIA RELEASE
SF/142. Thursday May 24, 2007

You can picture this little creep drooling over her shoulder as he guides her through a selection of his favourite sites. Unfortunately as it turns out he, shall we say, shot his load too quickly. Before the threatened demonstration could take place Coonan admitted that the computers in her office were, filtered!

What is it with Christians and their obsession with what people are watching? They are so filled with outrage that they can't wait to show everyone else just how disgusting it is. In the NSW parliament it is a standing joke that F*** Nile has a huge porn collection. During the ANATOMY OF HELL controversy in 2004 he was itching to screen the film to other MP's. Further back, in 2000, Brain Harradine screened selected highlights form his porn collection that resulted in the NVE rating being dropped and the X18+ regulations tightened.

You can read the full steamy exchange between Fielding and Coonan here.

******

God is Not Great: how religion poisons everything

What a start! The Exclusive Bretheran, and Steve Fielding, that is far too much talk of the Religious Right for one update. Just do yourself a favour and buy the following book.

Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great: how religion poisons everything is the latest atheist work to be released. You should read Matt Buchanan's review from Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald to get a feeling of what to expect.

Better still, check-out this You Tube clip of Hitchens on Fox News commenting about the recent death of Jerry Falwell. Famous for forming the Moral Majority in the US, Falwell is the guy that Steve Fielding would love to emulate.

It's worth watching the whole clip if only to hear Hitchen's closing comment.

"If you gave Falwell an enema, he'd be buried in a matchbox"

******

FACE FUCKING INC.: RC
JACK'S POV 6: RC
DEBBIE DOES DALLAS AGAIN: RC
INTERNAL ANAL PLEASURE: RC

Sorry if the reporting of all this banned porn is getting somewhat repetitive. Unfortunately, it is where the main censorship is taking place. Twenty hardcore DVDs have been banned since the beginning of the year, and so far nine of these have been cut for X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings. Remember that none of this includes the huge number of hardcore DVDs that are pre-cut before the Classification Board even takes a look at them.

Calvista is the company that seems to take the most hits from the Classification Board. Of the twenty banned titles, fifteen were submitted by them. The past ten days have seen three more of their titles fall at the hands of the censors. FACE FUCKING INC., JACK'S POV 6, and DEBBIE DOES DALLAS AGAIN are all now banned in Australia.

Joining them is INTERNAL ANAL PLEASURE which was submitted by Metro Interactive. This is their first RC of the year.

FACE FUCKING INC. Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 21 May 2007
Author JOEY SILVERA
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company EVIL EMPIRE
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/2292
Classification Number 5370752F

JACK'S POV 6 Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 21 May 2007
Author RODDY D
Publisher SAM & JOONE
Production Company DIGITAL PLAYGROUND
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/2303
Classification Number 4272141C

DEBBIE DOES DALLAS AGAIN Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 17 May 2007
Author PAUL THOMAS
Publisher SHYLAR COBI
Production Company VIVID ENTERTAINMENT
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/2238
Classification Number 4370642E

INTERNAL ANAL PLEASURE Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 22 May 2007
Author ALEX ROMERO
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company METRO INTERACTIVE
Country of Origin USA
Applicant METRO INTERACTIVE AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/2339
Classification Number 5373041D

******

DD BRA BUSTERS VOL 1 NO 1: Modified

Some more magazine censorship to report. The UK magazine DD BRA BUSTERS VOL 1 NO 1 ? 2006 was originally classified Category 2 back in February. Gordon and Gotch obviously wanted a more marketable rating as they have torn out four pages of filth and have just been awarded the converted Category 1. 

DD BRA BUSTERS VOL 1 NO 1 ? 2006 Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 2 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version ORIGINAL
Duration 100 page(s)
Date of Classification 16 February 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher PLEASURE PUBLISHING
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin UK
Applicant GORDON & GOTCH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number L07/14
Classification Number 5073540E

DD BRA BUSTERS VOL 1 NO 1 ? 2006 Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 1 Restricted
Category Publication
Version MODIFIED
Duration 96 page(s)
Date of Classification 18 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher PLEASURE PUBLISHING
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin UK
Applicant GORDON & GOTCH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number L07/14
Classification Number 4370640C

******

THE PICTURE PREMIUM #106: Modified

Magazine censorship of a different kind for issue #106 of THE PICTURE PREMIUM. Again the distributor ended up being awarded ratings that were higher than expected. Category 1 instead of Unrestricted, and Category 2 instead of Category 1. However, these being Australian publications, proof prints were initially submitted, and the necessary changes made before the magazine was printed. So no messy torn out pages in this case. The censorship is clean, and undetectable.

THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 106 (said to be unrestricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 1 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 16 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/75
Classification Number 4370752F

THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 106 (said to be unrestricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Unrestricted
Consumer Advice M - not recommended for readers under 15 years.
Category Publication
Version MODIFIED
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 23 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/75
Classification Number 7672050F

THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 106 (said to be restricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 2 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 16 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/76
Classification Number 4371243F

THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 106 (said to be restricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 1 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version ORIGINAL
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 23 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/76
Classification Number 5272540E

******

Senate Estimates: NT Porn

Lat week was Senate Estimates time again in Canberra.

Here the ALP's Queensland Senator Joe Ludwig, and the Liberals WA Senator David Johnston question the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty about the inappropriate use of post boxes in the Northern Territory.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Discussion
Date 23 May, 2007
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Department ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO
Page 4
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate

Proceedings suspended from 12.33 pm to 1.36 pm

Talk
CHAIR—We are still with the Australian Federal Police. Senator Ludwig has some further questions.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—As I understand it the Australian Federal Police have a role in classification law and copyright law. There are now a range of criminal offences that have been provided for. Do you have a separate unit that looks at those issues?

Talk
Mr Keelty—No, we do not. It is done along with the other general work that is referred to the AFP as part of the intellectual property crime.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—In relation to the distribution of offensive material by post, have any prosecutions been made or are there any underway in the last, say, five years?

Talk
Senator Johnston—Do you mean drugs or—

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—No, offensive material by post.

Talk
Mr Keelty—Is it in relation to copyright or in relation to offensive material in the post?

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—It could go to whatever the definition of offensive material is in the Criminal Code, but that could include classification law issues, child pornography—a range of offences. I have got a private member’s bill in the Senate. It is not appropriate to go to that in this committee; I mention that so that we do not particularly go to the private member’s bill, but I am certainly entitled to ask about the issue.

Talk
Mr Keelty—Not that I am aware of. There are a number of referrals that we have got on intellectual property but not of the type that you have just described.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—With respect to the offence itself, are you familiar with the penalty that is available for transmission by post of offensive material?

Talk
Mr Keelty—I am personally not aware.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—My understanding is there a penalty of two years, regardless of whether it is child pornography material or other offensive material. But I am happy to be corrected on my understanding.

Talk
Senator Johnston—We will take that on notice.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—So there are no current referrals in respect of these issues—offensive material by post?

Talk
Mr Keelty—No, Senator.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—I have got correspondence that has been sent to Eros from Senator Coonan and Clare Martin and correspondence to Paul Burke, Director of Australia Post, relating to the misuse of postboxes in the Northern Territory—I want to deal with this in a sensible way—by distributing films which allegedly include a range of offences such as child pornography and rape and other films refused classification. On the one hand it is legitimate X-rated material that has been produced in breach of copyright. So there are a range of issues associated with it in the context of the Northern Territory and a post office box. I am happy to make available to you the letter from Senator Coonan.

Talk
CHAIR—You will table that?

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Yes, if I may. The date on that letter from Senator Coonan is obscure—I assume it is February 2007, but I stand to be corrected. Towards the bottom of the letter, it says:

I have also written to Senator the Hon Chris Ellison,—

so it may have been 2006—

Minister for Justice and Customs, who has portfolio responsibility for the Australian Federal Police, to ask that he similarly request the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to investigate the allegations as a matter of priority in relation to possible breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

Has that referral been made?

Talk
Senator Johnston—I am not certain, but I have seen something in the last month or so with respect to this, and it may well have been a response to your private member’s bill. I am sure that I have seen a response from Australia Post as to this topic. Now, where it is at, I am not sure, and I need to take that on notice and come back to you. But bear in mind that, if the minister has sent it to my predecessor and it is in my office or it has been through my office, I will track it down and follow it up.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—All right, but the Australian Federal Police have not received an advice from the minister’s office to investigate the allegations that are contained?

Talk
Mr Keelty—Not that I am aware of, no.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—The allegations of course relate to the misuse of post office boxes in the Northern Territory. It talks about vendors of ‘adult’ material allegedly distributing illegal products, including child sex abuse material and unclassified videos and DVDs through the use of postboxes.

Talk
Senator Johnston—Yes, and I am thinking that my predecessor may have forwarded it on to Northern Territory Police. You understand the complication and confusion that may well have caused for all of us here. I will follow it up to see what has exactly transpired; I will talk to Senator Ellison and find out what has happened.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Perhaps I will provide another one, because it is one from the chief minister and—

Talk
Senator Johnston—And she says that we have got it?

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Yes.

Talk
Senator Johnston—So we did send it to her, obviously; we have obviously contacted her.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—That letter goes to the extent of—

Talk
Senator Johnston—What is the date of that letter?

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—It is dated 13 August 2006.

Talk
Senator Johnston—It is all pretty old.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—It is not that old.

Talk
Senator Johnston—No, but it should have come to the service by now.

—I would have expected so. This letter from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory says:

Thank you for your correspondence of 30 May 2006 concerning the supply of illegal (unclassified) pornography to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

The Minister for Police has relayed to me advice he has received from the Commissioner of Police, Mr Paul White, regarding the matters raised in your correspondence.

The Police Commissioner has advised that this matter has been investigated and action taken to prosecute individuals or companies in breach of the Northern Territory Classification Of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act 2005.

I am advised that offences are subject to ongoing investigation by Northern Territory Police with a number of individuals facing prosecution.

In respect to the use of mailboxes, the Police advice is that when evidence is adduced that indicates use for sale of pornographic material, action is taken under Schedule 14 of the Commonwealth Postal Act to terminate use of such post office boxes.

The letter then says that, with respect to the allegations raised, ‘the NT police have advised that the primary responsibility for the investigation of pirated materials rests with the Australian Federal Police’. I am not going to offer a legal opinion, but my understanding is that this letter seems to have been sent to you, Minister, for action.

Talk
Senator Johnston—Just give me a minute to read this letter so that I can understand exactly what it says. What I think has happened here is that we have referred the original inquiry from Senator Coonan to the Northern Territory police or have been advised of the fact that they have been investigating the matter.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Before you go any further, it appears that it has originated from—and this why I wanted to take you through it—what you know, what is in your office and what has been referred to the Australian Federal Police.

Talk
Senator Johnston—I do not know very much, I have to confess.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—I was hopeful we might have had a trail and an investigation in place, but that does not seem to be the case. It appears that a letter was written to Paul Burke, the manager of the board of directors of Australia Post, on 1 May 2006 about the breach of Australia Post rules and regulations in the Northern Territory. It is about classification enforcement but it would also be in relation to any offensive material that may have been transmitted by post as well. That was from Robbie Swan, the public officer of the EROS Association. I can provide a copy of that as well. That seems to have gone to Australia Post at that time.

Talk
Senator Johnston—This letter that you have given me from the Chief Minister says that she is ‘advised that offences are subject to an ongoing investigation by Northern Territory Police with a number of individuals facing prosecution’.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Yes, but there are a number of elements. The element I am asking you about is your responsibility federally for Australia Post—Commonwealth offences, copyright and child pornography being transmitted by post.

Talk
Senator Johnston—Postboxes are very difficult.

Talk
Mr Cornall—I have been advised by the AFP officer that this matter was brought to the attention of the department in February. I am not personally aware of it, but we are trying to ascertain who it was for and for what purpose. When I know the answer to that, I will advise you.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—I will not make a comment about it, but it has reportedly been referred to your office. I am trying to establish when it was referred to your office and what action has been taken.

Talk
Senator Johnston—I will take that on notice. It is very difficult to ascertain how a post office box is being used without offending some privacy rules and regulations and in fact opening mail that is in non-transparent packaging. So I suspect that that is one of the aspects of why the Attorney-General’s Department has got it. We will follow it up and come back to you on the administration of postboxes, particularly relating to the Northern Territory, with respect to offensive material.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—It is broader than that. It relates to when it got to your office, what action was taken by your office and why it was not referred to the Australian Federal Police for them to investigate, when clearly it seems that elements of the offences could be considered to be federal offences—certainly identified as associated with a post office box and associated with transmission by mail of offensive material. For what reason was it determined that it should not go to the Australian Federal Police, if in fact a decision was made, and why was that decision made? These are serious matters, as you can appreciate. They have been ongoing and it looks like they have been batted about between the Australia Post and the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory trying to get to the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police indicate that they have not received the matter.

Talk
Senator Johnston—The Northern Territory version of the Australian Federal Police have pursued it, according to the Chief Minister, and people are facing prosecution. That may have coloured the conduct that has flowed therefrom, but I take your point and we will come back to you on it.

Talk
Senator LUDWIG—So you have got the Chief Minister’s letter, Senator Coonan’s letter and Paul Burke’s letter?

Talk
Senator Johnston—Yes.

******

Senate Estimates: Donald McDonalds Appointment

Here the Liberal's Nick Minchin is questioned about the appointment of Donald McDonald as the new Chief censor.

The speakers are:

ALP
WA Senator Chris Evans 
NSW Senator John Faulkner

Liberal Party
SA Senator Nick Minchin 

Democrats
WA Senator Andrew Murray

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Executive 
Dr Louise Morauta, Deputy Secretary

Support services for government operations Output group 4 
Mr Alex Anderson, Assistant Secretary, Legal Policy

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General: Discussion
Date 21 May, 2007
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Department Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Program Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Page 86
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate

Senator CHRIS EVANS—I have a few questions about the appointment of Donald McDonald as chief censor. I know this was an appointment by the Attorney-General, but I want to ask about the PM&C’s engagement with it. Was that appointment made by cabinet, or was it by the Attorney-General alone?

Talk
Senator Minchin—It was made by cabinet.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—So it was made by cabinet on the advice of the Attorney-General?

Talk
Senator Minchin—Yes.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—Do all sorts of appointments of that seniority generally go to cabinet?

Talk
Senator Minchin—Yes. The form is that the relevant minister writes to the Prime Minister proposing the appointment and saying, ‘You may wish to take this to cabinet.’ Formally it is a decision for the Prime Minister as to what appointments can be made either between the minister and the Prime Minister or whether they should go to full cabinet, but my experience is that they all go to cabinet, and that one certainly did.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—Is the department or the minister able to confirm for me the veracity of the publicly reported comments from Mr Ruddock that said the Prime Minister played no part in the discussions because he was out of the cabinet room when the decision was made. That has been reported in a number of papers. Do I take this to mean that the Prime Minister excluded himself from the decision making process, or had he gone to the bathroom?

Talk
Senator Minchin—It is not unusual for cabinet ministers who may have what they would deem a personal relationship with a proposed appointee to absent themselves from the decision. Normally that would mean physically absenting themselves. My recollection is that in that case, because of the well-known personal friendship between the Prime Minister and Mr Donald McDonald, he absented himself from the room. But as I say, it is not unusual for cabinet ministers to declare a personal relationship with a proposed appointee and to seek to avoid any commentary upon the matter by absenting themselves.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—Thank you for that, Minister. I was interested because—I hasten to add that I am not saying these were necessarily direct quotes—in a couple of places it was reported that Mr Ruddock said that the Prime Minister played no part and he was out of the room.

Talk
Senator Minchin—That is my recollection.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—You are confirming that it was a conscious decision for him to be out of the room in the sense that he took a decision to absent himself from the cabinet decision on this appointment. That was on the basis of his perceived potential conflict of interest, given his personal relationship—

Talk
Senator Minchin—He did not want it asserted and it is not unusual. My recollection is, and you may be aware, that Mrs Nicola Downer, the wife of the foreign minister, was appointed to the Australia Council on merit—a good appointment. My recollection is that the foreign minister obviously absented himself on that occasion. When there is a personal relationship of one kind or another or a relationship that is known in the public arena, it is not unusual, and I suspect that occurs at state level and at federal level on both sides of politics.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—Who was left in the room when you appointed Senator Vanstone to Italy—just the note taker?

Talk
Senator MURRAY—The other faction.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—Did Senator Vanstone’s appointment go to cabinet? Isn’t it right that some of these diplomatic appointments do and some don’t?

Talk
Senator Minchin—That is right. As I said before, the prerogative rests with the Prime Minister.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—I was just asking whether Senator Vanstone’s appointment went to cabinet?

Talk
Senator Minchin—I am not sure what that has got to do with PM&C and Donald McDonald.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—Because this is the department that is responsible for cabinet.

Talk
Senator Minchin—It is a foreign affairs—

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—The ‘C’ of PM&C is cabinet.

Talk
Senator Minchin—Thank you for that, I have often wondered.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—You know that and just let us move on.

Talk
Senator Minchin—That is a diplomatic appointment and I can come back to you on that.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—You do not remember?

Talk
Senator Minchin—I am not going to answer that on the run, no.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—Fair enough if you do not know, but I am surprised you do not know. But surely you can answer the question as to whether that particular appointment went to cabinet, but if you are saying to us you don’t know—

Talk
Senator Minchin—I am just saying to you I will come back to you on that.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—Why don’t you answer us?

Talk
Senator Minchin—It is my business, not yours.

Talk
CHAIR—Senator Minchin said he will take that on notice and come back.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—But why won’t you answer it now then?

Talk
Senator Minchin—That is my business, not yours. I will get you an answer in due course.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—You do not think there is a public interest in a simple matter as to whether Senator, or ex-Senator, Vanstone’s appointment went to cabinet or not?

Talk
Senator Minchin—I am not saying your question is illegitimate. I am saying I will come back to you with an answer.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—I am asking you why?

Talk
Senator Minchin—If I can do that tomorrow I will.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—What possible reason is there for delay on that?

Talk
Senator Minchin—I have given you my answer.

Talk
CHAIR—Senator Faulkner, Senator Minchin has indicated he will take that on notice.

Talk
Senator FAULKNER—He just wants to cover it up for some reason.

Talk
CHAIR—He has indicated he will take it on notice.

Proceedings suspended from 9.17 pm to 9.35 pm

Talk
CHAIR—We will continue with general questions to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—I want to go back to the appointment of Donald McDonald as chief censor. Minister Minchin, was the Prime Minister the only one to excuse himself from that decision-making process?

Talk
Senator Minchin—I do not want to make it a practice of going through who is and is not in cabinet meetings for particular decisions. All I can say is my recollection is that it was only the Prime Minister.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—I am only going off what Minister Ruddock introduced into the public domain by referring to this decision. I assume it was because of the well-known, close friendship between the Prime Minister and Mr McDonald, but I just wondered whether there was anything else.

Talk
Senator Minchin—Not that I recall.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—Did the department play any role, Dr Morauta, in providing advice on the selection of the chief censor?

Talk
Dr Morauta—I have been advised that we had no role in that process.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—So when the advice came forward providing Mr McDonald’s name it was not after discussions with or advice from the PM’s department?

Talk
Mr Anderson—That is correct.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—Did you see the short list of names provided by the Attorney-General’s Department or did it just come forward as a recommendation under an item from the A-G’s Department?

Talk
Mr Anderson—I do not believe that we saw the short list of names.

Talk
Senator CHRIS EVANS—I understand that Mr McDonald was not the recommended applicant.

Talk
Mr Anderson—I could not comment on that, Senator.

******

Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007: Second Reading

The bill has had a second reading and has support from both sides of parliament. More restrictions, more censorship, more control. 

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 10 May, 2007
Database House Hansard
Speaker Ley, Sussan, MP (Farrer, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, LP, Government)
Page 7
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bills
Main Committee No

Ms LEY (Farrer—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (9.41 a.m.)—I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

More Australians than ever are using mobile phones and today’s users expect their mobiles to deliver ever increasing types of entertainment and information. Mobile phones and other hand-held devices now offer access to a range of media-rich services including broadcasting, internet and telephone content. New content services such as live streamed services are also being delivered through subscription internet portals.

Such services can be expected to bring substantial benefits for Australian consumers and new business opportunities for carriage service providers (CSPs) and content service providers; however, they may also carry potentially offensive or harmful content. The Australian government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect Australian citizens, particularly children, from exposure to illegal and highly offensive content delivered over convergent devices such as mobile handsets, and over the internet more generally.

The Review of the Regulation of Content Delivered over Convergent Devices (‘the review’) was conducted by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and released in April 2006. It found that there may be a lack of appropriate protections for users, particularly children, from inappropriate audiovisual content on mobile devices and existing regulatory frameworks may not provide an effective response.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 (the bill) gives effect to the government’s commitment to extend the current safeguards to put in place new measures to protect consumers from inappropriate or harmful material on convergent devices such as 3G mobile phones and through subscription internet portals.

The bill establishes a framework which aims to regulate emerging content services in a platform and technology neutral manner—it strengthens the regulation of ‘stored’ content where this is delivered on a commercial basis and establishes new rules to address ‘live’ and interactive content services such as chat rooms. The immediate effect of this will be that service providers supplying content services including live, streamed services over a carriage service such as a mobile phone will be subject to these new obligations.

The main focus of the bill is to extend the general approach adopted by the government in relation to content regulation to those services where it considers adequate safeguards are not currently in place.

Much of the content for these new services is likely to be based on content created for supply in relation to a range of other existing media services. The new regulations will be aligned, as far as possible, with the regulation of traditional media content. At the same time, the framework takes account of the technical and other differences applying to the delivery of content on these new platforms including their impact on the ability of service providers to practically manage the wide range of content being delivered to users.

Under the proposed new framework content that is, or potentially would be, rated X18+ and above must not be delivered or made available to the public, and access to material that is likely to be rated R18+ must be subject to appropriate age verification mechanisms.

As a general rule, where content is provided by means of a content service that is operated on a commercial basis, and is likely to be classified MA15+ or above, access must only be made available subject to appropriate age verification mechanisms. This requirement will include content provided to premium mobile services but not to a news or current affairs service, or to electronic books or magazines.

Similar limitations relating to prohibited content and age verification mechanisms will also apply in relation to live streamed services.

In the case of electronic editions of print publications such as books and magazines, where these have been classified ‘Restricted—Category 1’, ‘Restricted—Category 2’ or ‘Refused Classification’, they will be prohibited. Electronic editions of publications which are unrestricted in print form will be excluded from the new regulatory framework and will be able to be made freely available online.

Similarly, certain types of content services, including those which provide content regulated under existing broadcasting regulatory frameworks, and the content of private users’ personal communications will be excluded from the scope of the new regulatory framework.

Carriage service providers who do no more than provide a carriage service that enables content to be delivered or accessed will not be considered to be providing a content service under the new scheme.

The new regime will be based on a take-down model as used under the existing Online Content Scheme. Under the new scheme, a content service provider will need to remove access to prohibited content or potential prohibited content if ACMA issues them with a ‘take-down’ notice for stored or static content, or a ‘service-cessation’ notice for live content, or a ‘link deletion’ notice for links to content.

Where a content service provider fails to comply with a notice from ACMA, civil or criminal penalties may be pursued.

To strengthen the ability of the scheme to respond to repeated and deliberate offences by providers of stored content, such as, for example, where stored picture or video content is slightly modified or changed but still in breach of the requirements, the bill proposes to enable ACMA to issue a notice to a hosting service provider to ensure that content that is substantially similar to the stored content already subject to a take-down notice is not made available.

Consistent with the co-regulatory approach which has been implemented for other media such as television, radio and the internet, the providers of new content services will be given the opportunity to develop industry codes to implement cost effective mechanisms and rules for meeting their obligations under the regulatory framework.

Different sections of the content services industry will be able to develop codes of practice to give effect to certain content service provider obligations, and, where necessary, ACMA will have the power to determine industry standards where it considers that industry codes are deficient in ensuring that content services are provided in accordance with prevailing community standards.

Live content services will be regulated in a manner consistent, as far as possible, with the regulation of traditional media content and the new approach for stored or static content services provided to convergent devices.

Although pre-assessment of live or ‘real time’ services is in many ways impractical, it will be mandatory that codes of practice developed for live services provided on a commercial basis include provisions to deal with the assessment of the likely nature of these services. Under these mandatory code requirements, commercial content service providers who deliver live services must seek the advice of a trained content assessor on the likely classification before providing the service if there is a reasonable likelihood that the service would be classified as MA15+ or above. If the advice indicates that the service is likely to fall within a restricted category, it is incumbent upon the service provider to deliver the service with appropriate consumer information and age verification mechanisms.

The bill also outlines examples of matters which may be addressed in a code of practice, including complaint handling procedures, consumer information requirements, promoting the awareness of safety issues including in relation to commercial chat services, and the making and retention of records.

The bill and subsequent amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 will implement measures to require a mobile service account holder’s consent before the location of any handsets operated under the account may be used or disclosed. This will address concerns about the potential for location based services to be used to facilitate inappropriate contact with minors.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 provides for the timely introduction of a new regulatory framework for a rapidly developing area of the communications sector. It is part of a wide-ranging package of measures introduced by the Australian government to ensure that Australian consumers have access to new, innovative services. The new framework provides appropriate protections for children from being exposed to content suited only to adults while providing industry with the flexibility to explore the potential of providing entertainment and other services over new technologies.

The government has also taken the opportunity in this bill to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to ensure that Australia’s Indian Ocean territories comprising Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, can be included in the regular independent reviews of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote Australia. This will help in ensuring that the adequacy of these territories’ telecommunications services is appropriately assessed.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Ms Plibersek) adjourned.

***

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 23 May, 2007
Database House Hansard
Page 71
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Procedural text
Context Bills
Main Committee No
Size 2Kb

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Ms Ley:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

***

Here the ALP's Anthony Albanese speaks in favour of the second reading of the COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT bill.

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 23 May, 2007
Database House Hansard
Speaker Albanese, Anthony, MP (Grayndler, ALP, Opposition)
Page 44
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bills
Main Committee No

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (1.59 p.m.)—I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007. The bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide for the regulation of content services delivered over convergent devices, such as broadband services to mobile handsets and new types of content provided over the internet. The bill also seeks to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to ensure that Australia’s Indian Ocean territories can be included in regular, independent reviews of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote Australia.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about legislation in this area and wish to stress the importance of getting the balance right. It is believed that there are some 14 million mobile phones in Australia. That is a reminder of how fast technology can move in Australia. Just 20 years ago, this was unknown. Now it is commonplace that even very young people have access to mobile phone technology, and increasingly all sectors of the community have access. We need to make sure we have equitable access and a proper legislative framework for the expansion of telecommunications technology.

Today, hand-held mobiles and all sorts of portable devices have the capacity to deliver various types of information, including live audiovisual content, streamed information and interactive chat services. The portability of such devices means that Australians have access to the world at their fingertips—instantly and at every hour of the day and the night—allowing them to respond quickly and to be more competitive than ever before. However, left unchecked, such devices can also expose vulnerable Australians—in particular children—to information that may well be harmful to them. Concerns have been raised about the effect of exposing young people to pornographic, hateful or violent material. Such information could be dangerous and misleading. Last night on television I saw a report about the transfer of what can only be described as extraordinarily hateful material associated with the disturbances at Cronulla. When considering communications devices, we need to be not only very conscious of the positive benefits but also vigilant in making sure that there are no negative consequences in the availability in mass form of this technology.

It is critical that any legislation that is considered in the House of Representatives—and any consequent regulation—strikes a balance between adequate protections for consumers and fair access rights to providers. Without this balance we will either harm our young or legislate censorship that limits the rights and liberties of service providers—and indeed of all Australians. It is for this reason that the bill before us must be given due consideration. Members would be aware that on the day this bill was made available it was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for examination. The committee is not expected to report back before 12 June 2007. Broadly speaking, this bill fits in with Labor’s policy to protect children from online pornography and access to inappropriate materials. As such, federal Labor will support the passage of this bill, subject to the outcome of the Senate inquiry.

I note that internationally, content services are regulated according to one of two broad principles: self-regulation or co-regulation. This bill outlines a framework for co-regulation of divergent devices, thereby allowing industry, government and consumers to come together to develop rules and regulations. I also note that there may be differing views as to whether self- or co-regulation be applied to the Australian context. It is imperative that such different perspectives be adequately considered and that we get the outcomes right. For this reason, it is imperative that the Senate inquiry be allowed to run its course and take evidence from all concerned and affected parties.

I am pleased to note that the concerns previously expressed by industry after the government released its exposure draft bill in February 2007 have been taken into account and incorporated into the redrafted bill we are debating today. I congratulate the government on that. Their concerns went to some key issues. Firstly, they included the potential for the bill to have a censorship effect and thereby limit viewing of content that would otherwise be available in its standard form, and, secondly, inconsistencies with state laws. This again highlights the importance of extensive consultation.

I look forward to the outcome of the Senate inquiry. I expect the bill presented to the Senate will strike an appropriate balance between protection and the retention of liberties for all Australians. If that is the case, Labor will certainly lend its support to this legislation.

***

The Liberal's Alan Cadman also speaks in favour of the bill.

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 23 May, 2007
Database House Hansard
Speaker Cadman, Alan, MP (Mitchell, LP, Government)
Page 45
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bills
Main Committee No

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007

Second Reading
Speech
Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (2.06 p.m.)—This matter has been of interest to a number of government members for a substantial time. That interest has been raised by a series of events, particularly in the area of film and literature. As indicated by the member for Grayndler, as the development of new technologies has progressed there has been an increasing concern to examine the impact of internet gaming and other broadcast factors that allow people to participate, sometimes unwillingly, in programs they would not choose to involve themselves in or in which children get caught up in processes which can lead to the satisfaction of paedophiles or to violence.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 has been introduced by the government to deal with a range of media-rich services, including broadcasting, internet and telephone connections. I think the whole community realises that, with the introduction of the 3G environment, over our telephones we can get practically anything from anywhere in the world. Of course, the push of advertising and of people who want to push people into programs where there is a payment process is understood. At the same time, for those who are under age and for those who are susceptible to the blandishments of such programs, there is good reason why we should take care in this area.

The Attorney-General has scope to deal with material that is violent, damaging to individuals or sexually explicit under the film and television framework and in the print media as well. However, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the broadcast and internet environment have not been brought under a consistent approach. One of the highlights of pointing out to members of the government the need for a consistent approach to both the communications and the film and literature areas is the Channel 10 program Big Brother—in particular, Big Brother Uncut, in which there were a couple of segments which were obnoxious and frowned upon and really disliked by any sensible person. In a letter to my colleague the member for Makin, Channel 10 admitted:

TEN is aware that the public is concerned about how housemates are treated. We accept ACMA’s decision that episodes of Big Brother Uncut 2005 contained sexually demeaning references to women, and that this was a significant factor in ACMA’s breach finding. We are determined not to repeat this mistake in 2006.

In July 2005, TEN commissioned two experts in the treatment of women and sexual harassment to independently review last year’s Big Brother production processes. Their report, ‘Gender, Sex and Ethics in the Big Brother House’, found that while existing production safeguards were generally good, there was room for improvement.

I say hear, hear to that. I think there is a lot of room for improvement in that program. I find it obnoxious in many areas. The people on it behave towards each other in a bad manner. I think Channel 10 themselves admitted that something like 76,000 children watch that program—even though it is quite late at night. The letter continued:

The report made a number of constructive recommendations for improving awareness of gender and sexual harassment issues amongst both housemates and production crew. TEN and ESS have implemented each of these recommendations, including improved guidelines for monitoring the house to identify potentially risky situations and intervene as necessary; providing housemates and production crew with more extensive education on sexual and gender harassment; and amending the Housemate rules to specifically ban sexual or gender harassment.

That is one area that came to the attention of the House, and there was a lot of discussion here. I know that the Prime Minister stated that Channel 10 ought to take a good look at themselves and amend their program—and that eventually happened. But we realised at that point that there were no real guidelines for television programs except a code of conduct which was agreed among people—and ACMA found that the code of conduct was breached.

This legislation brings into a more cohesive framework and makes more consistent the guidelines applying to film and television and literature, which are administered by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, under the Attorney-General, and those areas that are administrated by the minister for communications. This legislation gives effect to the government’s commitment to extend the current safeguards that apply by putting in place new measures to protect consumers from inappropriate or harmful material on convergent devices such as 3G mobile phones and through subscription internet portals—where people have the whole wide world and anybody can bombard a home with any material whatsoever.

We should look not only at the harassment and violence aspects and the encouragement to do violence but also at the dangerous terrorism factors and the construction of bombs, harmful instruments and weapons. Something every Australian should be fearful of is that somebody, out of a sense of adventurism, could gain access to material about weapons, bomb making and harmful practices. Reports that have been made available to the parliament claim that some of the mass shootings in the United States were in fact generated by programs that the young men had been watching for protracted periods which focus on nothing but an obsession with the killing of other human beings. They put this into practice by going into their schools and taking it out on their schoolmates, their teachers and the community. So there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Generally I would say that this parliament considers that adults should be free to make up their own minds, but where that freedom impacts on others who are not capable of making sensible decisions then I think we need to consider where the line is drawn—and do that very carefully.

I have before me some statements about the Big Brother show and also about how that program was dealt with. It is really interesting that, in June 2006, Channel 10 finally admitted that 76,000 children could be watching the adults only version of Big Brother during the week. I do not think that is the sort of program I want my kids to watch. If it was on at 7.30 pm I would be tearing the place down, but it should not be on at any time when that many children may be watching. Libertarians and others fail to recognise that most kids watch television unsupervised. I think the figures show that 78 per cent of kids watch television unsupervised. Parents think a program is safe, they put the television on and they let their kid watch it. Even more than that, children frequently have television sets in their own rooms, so parents do not know what is being watched. This bill is a move towards regulating exactly what is going over the airwaves on the internet, telephone and other similar electronic means of communication, because it can become absolutely open-ended with no control, no balance and no sense of what is reasonable for young people to watch.

The measures relating to the content of Big Brother lead me to look at the fact that we have telephones that are capable of taking photographs and transmitting them. According to a recent survey:

One in four people used their mobile phones to dial up a news, weather or other information report in the past year but research also suggests that content services will need to be subsidised by advertising to be cheap enough for mass appeal.

So there is a wide user pool of people wanting to use their mobile phones for information.

This legislation currently before the House was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, 11 May, as the federal government announcing and introducing laws to make it harder for children to access adult content on the internet and via mobile phones. What this legislation is really introducing is a law that says that companies providing content that is classified as restricted 18+ and MA 15+ will need to verify the age of their customers. X-rated content is banned over those services—and so it should be. The move follows the Big Brother incident—there is no doubt about that—and the live footage of that show that was broadcast. The Herald refers to that.

There was a report late last year in the HeraldSun about violent video games being on the rise. It said:

Violent video games are hitting Australian shelves in record numbers ...

The Office of Film and Literature Classification review board has slapped MA 15+ tags on 69 computer games so far this year, compared with just 20 last year.

In the article, Dr Joe Tucci said that the rise in violent video games is harmful to youth. He also said:

We are living in a world where young people are increasingly exposed to violence, whether that be real or virtual violence ... We know it is having an impact on children’s behavioural problems, the rates of depression and aggression. We know that these violent MA 15+ games are getting into the hands of younger children through older siblings and friends, and they are being introduced to concepts well beyond their developmental capacity.

The article went on to say:

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway warned parents to keep children away from violent games.

“There is enough anecdotal evidence available linking violence among young people to the violence they are faced with in these games,” she said.

That is true. Those games can be played on a PlayStation, a personal computer or over the internet. There are a great number of people using the internet to play games which could be violent and damaging to young people.

A former judge warned the government earlier this week that we need to be careful about these laws in regard to bullying. He said that bullying can occur in the cyberworld just as much as it can occur face to face. Mr Alastair Nicholson, a former Chief Justice of the Family Court, said in his address to the National Coalition Against Bullying:

The law has not really caught up with problems that have come about as a result of the huge expansion in the use of SMS (text messaging), email and digital photographs ... It’s not going to go away and they’re certainly going to have problems in the Children’s Court with it.

His comments came ahead of a two-day ‘Cyberian’ internet and technology safety symposium at the Camberwell Grammar School. This legislation, according to Mr Nicholson, who is a very well known judge, is not adequate with regard to cyber-bullying.

This legislation is a big step ahead. Yet, on the other hand, there are reports of people saying that they are mature enough to handle anything and that they do not care what comes over the internet. One commentator, Ross Fitzgerald, said in the Australian on Monday, 24 April that he is pleased that some of George Bush’s attempts to restrict access to material have been overturned in court.

Even though to some this legislation appears not to go as far as they would like it to, the minister said on Thursday, 17 May, that:

The Internet can make a positive contribution to the way our children learn, develop and are supported ...

However, left in limbo without a proper legislative framework, technology and educational support, the Internet (and other emerging technologies) pose a genuine risk to society’s most vulnerable citizens; our children and young people.

That certainly is the case, because chatrooms, the web content of some sites, the social networking that takes place and the way in which people can enter into discussions and distract participants into a one-to-one relationship which is absolutely unhealthy are only recently coming to the attention of the government. The minister went on to say:

... SMS and MMS communications, instant messenger and emails and now, peer-to-peer networks, have all challenged the ways we go about protecting our children.

So this legislation protecting our children is not just a matter of setting something and then forgetting about it; it has got to be multifaceted and ongoing in making continual changes. The minister in her speech said:

Macabre websites are targeting vulnerable young people and encouraging them to commit suicide (and providing detailed information of how to do it)—often live online, pro-anorexia sites are setting up online support networks for sick girls to join ‘starvation clubs’—

would you believe—

and paedophiles are proving adept at exploiting new and emerging technology, now including Skype, to prey on children.

The technology is moving ahead at an amazing pace and the government has moved to warn parents by providing free, downloadable software that parents can apply to their home computers to help assist their families make better decisions.

This legislation does ban certain types of products over the internet and through telephone services. This legislation sets very definite limits on R18+ and MA15+ material which must be met by the provider and a process of verification must be entered into. If the Australian Communications and Media Authority—ACMA—is advised that there have been transgressions, the fines are extremely onerous and substantial. This is good legislation introduced by a government which is concerned for our relationships with our children and their mental and physical safety.

There are guidelines for online content. There is an online child protection squad provided by the Australian Federal Police. This new online child protection squad within the AFP goes right to the centre of websites and broadcasting over the internet to establish precisely what is going on. There is an online child sex exploitation team. There have been child pornography arrests, with even a US offender being been brought to book through the activities of the AFP. There are tough Criminal Code provisions in this act and an extension of the Criminal Code to bullying.

The rapid advances in technology are being dealt with by a government that is aware of the need to protect the health of our young people and aware of the way in which the convergence of communications can make it so easy for people to stray into areas where they can become lost and perhaps in fact lose their lives.

The minister’s explanation of this legislation is particularly useful, but at the end of the day it is everybody’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of teachers, it is the responsibility of parents and it is the responsibility of government as well to provide a framework where children in particular can be protected. There are substantial laws to uphold the decisions that are going through the parliament today. I am pleased to hear that the Australian Labor Party’s outlook is similar to our own and they will not be opposing this legislation. I, too, look forward to the report of the Senate committee which will examine this matter and trust that they will adopt high standards for the use of the internet, SMS and other types of communications. (Time expired)

***

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 23 May, 2007
Database House Hansard
Speaker Hunt, Gregory, MP (Flinders, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, LP, Government)
Interjector SPEAKER, The
Page 47
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bills
Main Committee No

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (2.26 p.m.)—In rising to address the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 I wish to thank those speakers on both sides of the House who have lent their broad support to the contents, provisions and intent of this bill. This bill very simply is about protecting children and the most vulnerable in our society.

I wish to look firstly at the question of risk and secondly at the question of action which flows from wonderful opportunities in relation to the newest means of electronic broadcast and communication. The opportunities are absolutely clear: we have a revolution in telecommunications. What that means is that individuals for the first time in history have a capacity to access and to be engaged in the process of telecommunications from their own homes in a way which is broadcast and not just passed to another individual. That brings with it extraordinary opportunity, but it also brings with it a risk. The risk is very simple. It is the risk of abuse of the content. That means in practice that it could be a narrowcasting to particularly vulnerable groups in our society. It could be the broadcasting of material whether it is in relation to pornography, child offences or other such items, which are unacceptable.

Our response to that risk in relation to the use of the internet, the use of broad-scale telecommunications and the use of 3G mobile communications for improper purposes is very simple. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill sets up a regime which achieves one simple action. It puts together a common approach to standards for broadcast, internet, film and literature, and 3G telecommunications. In so doing it sets out a framework which, hopefully, will protect our children and the most vulnerable in our society and lead to a regime which is safe and desirable.

The bill sets down a series of actions to achieve these outcomes. It strengthens the regulation of stored content delivered over new devices; and it places greater obligations on the content service providers to make sure, in particular, that they protect and recognise young children who might otherwise have access to material which is dangerous, improper or in some way might compromise them. So it provides an extra protection for parents. Ultimately, it is the result of consultation with industry, and the industry has been extremely supportive. In addition to that, it backs up our content regulatory scheme—the Mobile Premium Services Industry Scheme. It has the support of members on both sides of the House and the support of the industry. I am delighted to commend the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 to the House.

Interjection
The SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to previously. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

***

[Permalink] HVP No. 170 20COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007
Date 23 May, 2007 
Page 1884
Proof Yes 
Database Votes & Proceedings
Source House 
Main Committee No

20 COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007 

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time—

Question—put and passed—bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved immediately.

On the motion of Mr Hunt (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs), the bill was read a third time.

Update May 28th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

Updates: April-May 2007