Australian Censorship News: August 2007

UPDATES: 11th August 2007
ISP Filtering Announcement.
DRINK FROM THE STINK: RC
EVIL VAULT 3: RC
HELLCATS 13: ATTACK OF SOME BIG ASSES!!!: RC
THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1: RC
BLACK SNAKE BITCHES: Censored.
Eros Magazine Vol.8 No3.
IEAA call for R-rating for games.
Changing Consumer Advice.
Classification Amendment Bill 2007: Second Reading.
Aboriginal Pornography restrictions Bill.

 

UPDATES 
11th August 2007

ISP Filtering Announcement.

On Thursday night John Howard and Kevin Rudd attempted to prove who was the bigger Christian when they spoke to over 700 churches in an event organised by the Australian Christian Lobby. Howard took the opportunity to announce that the government's Net Alert plan, which was to provide internet filters to all parents, would now include the option of having ISP filtering. This is different to Labor's threatened policy of having mandatory filters, something that Steve Fielding from the Family First party was pushing.

Whatever the outcome, expect the optional filtering to eventually become mandatory.

******

DRINK FROM THE STINK: RC
EVIL VAULT 3: RC
HELLCATS 13: ATTACK OF SOME BIG ASSES!!!: RC
THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1: RC
BLACK SNAKE BITCHES: Censored

Joey Silvera's EVIL VAULT 3 and HELLCATS 13: ATTACK OF SOME BIG ASSES!!!  have just joined HELLCATS 2 (RC May 2004) and HELLCATS 3 (RC July 2004) in being banned in Australia.  

Calvista also had Jordan Septo's DRINK FROM THE STINK Refused Classification. Whilst their DVD of BLACK SNAKE BITCHES has now been censored and is free with an X18+.

Proving that locally produced hardcore is not going to be treated any more leniently that its overseas counterpart, the Classification Board have just banned THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1. The applicant FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd also had problems last year when their DVD of ROSIE AUSSIE COUPLES #12 was also hit with an RC rating.

******

Eros Magazine Vol.8 No3.

Eros Magazine Vol.8 No3 is out now.  

Of particular interest in this issue is Robbie Swann's article regarding the Exclusive Brethren working to have the Flirt Adult store in Lithgow refused a license.

Adult Retailer Trumps Local Council and Exclusive Brethren 
Friday, 29 June 2007

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

Flirt’s owner, Jeff Oliver, had recently won an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s refusal to grant him a Development Application to set up in the main street of town. At its Policy Meeting on May 7th, Council announced that it was considering appealing the Land and Environment Court decision to the Supreme Court – in itself, an extraordinary action for a Council to take. An offer was then made by a couple of local businessmen, known to be from 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 Lithgow Council had severely undermined its independence in planning matters by stating that it would accept the money and that many people would consider this as tantamount to a bribe. “Everyone knew that it was the Exclusive Brethren who were 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 has, they should not be appealing a Land and Environment case on what is essentially moral grounds”. She said that Council’s claim that there appeared to be no ‘impediment’ to them accepting such an offer showed a lack of understanding of the law and especially the ‘Tort of Maintenance’ which outlines situations in which ‘litigation funding’ can be quite unlawful.

She 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 fully functional 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 use the damn toilet!?”

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.

The NSW Department of Local Government has asked its Investigations and Review Branch to look into the matter. The issue of local governments accepting money or other forms of support from religious and morals groups is highly illegal when viewed through the Tort Of Maintenance. It needs to be urgently looked at as many adult shop owners seeking Development Applications have been discriminated against by individual councilors who are heavily involved in local religious groups. Eros has suspected that bribes in one form or another have been taking place in this area for some time.

Eros estimates that 50 per cent of all Development Applications in Australia for adult retail premises are automatically refused by local councils. This rejection rate is so far above any other retail sector that that it is obvious that institutionalized discrimination is rife in the planning process at this level. Why it has not been picked up on by audits and reviews within state Planning Departments is hard to say but any adult shop owner who has been subjected to this official abuse will tell you that invariably there are one or two councilors who have religious backgrounds who swing the rest of the Council on the issue. The influence of religious councilors who act as ‘moral enforcers’ while carrying out their civic duties, has increased over the years to the point where money and property deals between Council and the religious groups are now commonplace. The Brethren in Lithgow was just one example of many but it received a degree of media coverage and attention only because the Brethren had attracted a high profile in federal politics.

In fact, the situation is now so bad that we are starting to see councilors elected to local government on the fact that they run high profile campaigns against adult retail outlets as a way of galvanizing the religious vote in certain areas. How could they possibly be seen to be objective on planning matters involving adult shops when they were elected on a platform to get rid of them? This happened in Shepparton last year when two Salvation Army members (Sondrae Johnston and Dallas Terlich) campaigned on a platform to get rid of the local Club X shop. They were duly elected (ostensibly by the local religious community) and then spent tens of thousands of ratepayer’s dollars appealing decisions on the shop to VCAT. In itself, this could be seen as a misuse of the public purse by a religious group and an attempt by them to pervert the course of justice. An interesting postscript to this case was that Dallas Terlich was subsequently prosecuted in the local courts for stealing a large quantity of water from the public reserves.

Eros believes that the Independent Commission Against Corruption should investigate the links between religious groups and local councils around Australia, with an emphasis on how these links may have impacted on planning and development decisions.

By Robbie Swan - Eros' Media Director and Political Advisor to the CEO and the Board.

******

IEAA call for R-rating for games

Patrick Kolan from IGN AU recently interviewed Chris Hanlon from the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA). They talked about the latest IEAA survey, and touched on the R-rating for games.

AU Interview: IEAA CEO Chris Hanlon. ign.com.au 29.07.07

IGN: There's been a strong push over the last ten or so years for an R rating in Australia. Finally it's getting to the stage where the average age of gamers is almost ridiculously far beyond 18 - now sitting at an average age of 28. It builds a pretty strong case for an R rating. Do you have plans to present your fresh figures to the OFLC?

Chris Hanlon: Well, our President, John Watts and myself presented to Philip Ruddock and the standing committee of Attorney Generals twice last year and we presented them with data which talks about the average age of gamers in Australia being 28 years old. The industry has also gone around and spoken to every state and territory Attorney General and their policy advisors individually.

We also pointed out to them that the classification act says that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they choose. The purpose of the classification system is to protect minors from seeing materials that may harm them. We believe there is a strong legal basis for the games classification system in Australia to be the same as it is for films.

In the next few weeks, we'll be making a major announcement about classification policy, further discussing the reasons why an R classification is needed. We'll also be proposing what we think is a good model of a classification system that helps Australian parents make a quick decision when buying or hiring a game or film.

IGN: Is this something that you've been working with the OFLC on? Or is this something that's been worked on strictly internally?

Chris Hanlon: This is something we're doing internally and pitching to the government. We're writing it up now. I imagine we'll certainly be sending it out to all the Attorney Generals and policy advisors in the first instance and putting a copy on the net, etcetera.

***

IEAA: Average age of gamers is 28.

Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA)
Media Release
Australian gaming industry tops the billion dollar mark over financial year Sydney, Australia  30 July, 2007

Australia’s gaming industry has officially come of age, breaking the $1 billion sales mark over the past financial year, according to the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA).

Compiled by GfK Australia, the latest statistics show an overall market increase of 30 per cent over the past six months, with over 5.5 million games and almost half a million gaming consoles sold since January 1 this year.

“This is a spectacular result for the Australian gaming industry. Breaking through the $1 billion mark highlights the seriousness and sheer scale of the industry in Australia,” says Chris Hanlon, CEO of IEAA.

“Australians are embracing interactive gaming as a preferred form of entertainment and the industry will continue to grow as the technology, games and equipment become even more sophisticated,” says Hanlon.

“Interactive entertainment attracts people from all ages and walks of life who have significant disposable income. The stereotype of gaming as a children’s pursuit is simply wrong, with the average gamer age in Australia at 28.”

The figures indicate strong hardware sales, which generated almost $150 million in the last six months alone. Australians have also enjoyed the latest releases in games, spending almost $264 million over the same period.

“Australia is growing in significance in the international gaming industry. There are 40 game development companies across the country, employing some 2,500 people that have produced 240 game titles,” says Hanlon.

“By supporting the industry, Australian consumers are feeding the potential of the game creators and technology developers – which will mean cutting edge gaming and a significant contribution to the economy over the years to come,” Hanlon says.

GfK Australia’s Daniel Morse says the figures put the industry in a good position to break another record again this year, exceeding all expectations.

“All platforms performed extremely well considering the average platform lifecycle, which usually sees hardware sales decline a few years after launch as the market saturates and new technology is released.“ IEAA will be announcing next sales figures in January 2008. For more information about IEAA and the Australian gaming industry, visit www.ieaa.com.au.

Stop Piracy: IEAA is dedicated to tackling game piracy in the Australian gaming industry. It is against the law to make, import, buy or sell pirated game software. Piracy costs the Australian gaming industry approximately $100 million and hundreds of jobs every year. Report game piracy to 1800 20 40 19 or antipiracy@ ieaa.com.au. -ends-

About the IEAA
IEAA is a national industry association proactively representing companies in the interactive entertainment industry. Our members develop and market computer and video games software, hardware and accessories in Australia. IEAA is administered by a Board of Directors comprising senior executives from entertainment companies both large and small. The Board is supported by the CEO, Chris Hanlon. For more information, please visit www.ieaa.com.au

About GfK Research
GfK Australia is part of the Retail and Technology Division of the GfK Group, one of the largest market research organisations worldwide. We specialise in monitoring the product sales and market trends of industry sectors such as consumer electronics, entertainment media, information technology, major & small domestic appliances, photographic & imaging, telecommunications and toys.

GfK provides essential market data to over 200 organisations in Australia and New Zealand. Our client-base covers many of the leading manufacturers, vendors and distributors within their respective industries, plus the majority of the region's key retailers and resellers.

Our data is provided via a range of essential online, electronic and hard copy reports that provide relevant, informative and up-to-date market intelligence. As each industry grows more competitive with each new innovation these extensive research services will give you the competitive edge.

******

Changing Consumer Advice

A couple more instances of changing consumer advice to report.

Back in February 2001 Roadshow had the film VALENTINE classified MA15+ with consumer advice of 'Medium level violence'. Fast forward to July 2007 and the rating remains the same, though the consumer advice has now been increased to 'Strong Violence'.

A more recent example is John Woo's STRANGLEHOLD game. Red Ant Enterprises first had it classified MA15+ in June with consumer advice of 'Strong Violence'. It was re-submitted last week and the consumer advice was changed to 'Strong Action Violence'.

******

Classification Amendment Bill 2007: Second Reading

The bill was read for a second time with support coming from the Labor Party. Whilst the South Australian morals campaigner Trish Draper (who hit the headlines in 2004 for taking her lover on a taxpayers funded overseas trip) spoke against the bill. Draper, the Chairman of the Coalition's Classification Issues Group, will be retiring at the next election.

Also of interest was Philip Ruddock's comments about Draper's conservative home State. 

"In fact, in relation to the efforts to enable a wider classification group of categories for computer games, it has been the South Australian and the Commonwealth’s resistance to that measure that to date has ensured that it has not occurred"

He is of course referring to the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, who along with the Federal Government stopped the planned R18+ games rating.

 

Nicola Roxon MP (Labor) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 09 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Roxon, Nicola, MP (Gellibrand, ALP, Opposition) 
Page 84
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 
Main Committee Yes
Size 6Kb

Second Reading Speech Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (11.05 a.m.)—I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007. This bill has two purposes: firstly, it seeks to establish a scheme for the self-assessment of films and computer games, to enable them to be advertised before they are formally classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification; and, secondly, it seeks to revise and simplify the process for applying for a classification of compilations of TV series that have already been broadcast in Australia. I note now that the bill will be receiving Labor’s full support both here and in the Senate. The bill does not appear to weaken or strengthen Australia’s classification system in any way—only to streamline processes for advertisements of films and for certain types of applications.

This bill was introduced in March and arose out of discussion papers released by the government in June and August of last year. The bill itself contains two schedules, the purposes of which I have just outlined. The first schedule brings in new sections which enable the advertising of unclassified films and computer games. The scheme as it currently stands places industry at a disadvantage in that, due to the growing trends towards and ease of piracy, producers are not able to put their material forward to be classified until very close to the release date. This places quite restrictive burdens on them in terms of how they are able to advertise their films.

The amendments proposed in schedule 1 would set up a scheme that allows for industry based assessors to conduct preliminary self-assessments, in turn allowing them to conduct more extensive advertising campaigns before the material is formally rated by the OFLC. This does not include material which is likely to be rated X18+ or refused classification. Advertisement of that material will continue to be illegal.

Subdivision A of the bill allows for the particulars of the scheme to be established by legislative instrument. These include elements such as where the material may be advertised, the conditions under which it may be advertised, the requirements to be named as a self-assessor, the basis on which the self-assessor may make assessments and other issues. This legislative instrument will, according to the bill, be decided upon in consultation with other censorship ministers across Australia.

There is also provision in subdivision B of the legislation for applications to be made to the Classification Board, rather than a self-assessor, for assessment of a likely classification of the material. The explanatory memorandum states in this respect:

It is envisaged that applicants would use this provision for an assessment in difficult cases, or where they want the assurance of the Board’s consideration, or where it is not feasible or cost effective to obtain an assessment from an authorised assessor.

The amendments will also alter the definition of ‘advertisement’ to specifically include advertising on the internet and to exclude product merchandising from the definition.

The amendments contained in schedule 2 relate to the classification of compilations of TV series that have already been aired in Australia and, of course, have therefore already been classified. Naturally, this is in response to the increasing number of TV series which are being released on DVD. The rationale is simple—the material has already been aired in Australia and, as such, the process for applying should be streamlined to take this into account. The bill establishes another industry based self-assessment system, which allows an industry based assessor to perform an assessment of the material and then to submit a report to the Classification Board, which the board may then use as the basis of its classification decision. Naturally, the board retains the authority to revoke a classification if the assessment is later found to be misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate and where a different classification would have been given.

That is just a brief outline of the bill before us, which is a relatively simple one. Labor is in favour of it and commends it to the House.

***

Trish Draper MP (Liberal) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 09 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Draper, Trish, MP (Makin, LP, Government) 
Page 85
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 
Main Committee Yes

Second Reading Speech Mrs DRAPER (Makin) (11.09 a.m.)—The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007 has involved working with the states and territories to implement a new scheme which will supposedly mean greater levels of advertising for the film and computer game industries. This bill has been developed in response to industry concern, and concern for their profits, in relation to the current arrangements. The government, I am informed, has worked with film producers and advertisers, who have strongly voiced their concerns with the current legislation and the impact that its restrictions have on their ability to combat piracy. This bill is set to combat the risk of piracy as it permits companies to advertise their product further in advance of the release date. It is also supposed to eliminate red tape and clarify legal requirements to improve compliance, which of course remains to be seen.

As the chairman of the Classification Issues Group, I have long held concerns about this bill. This legislation, if passed, would replace the current prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games with a new scheme which permits the industry to self-assess and self-regulate their advertising regime. We all know about self-assessment and self-regulation. As the Australian community experienced in the latter half of 2006 with Channel 10’s Big Brother series, self-assessment and self-regulation overwhelmingly failed. As a result, the government and the office of the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, have been working to secure stronger powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, in introducing tougher regulations, not abolishing them, to strengthen the regime.

The Australian community continued to express their concern that, when advertising and industry profits are the paramount consideration, consumers and especially minors may be exposed to inappropriate advertising and graphically adult material, particularly in relation to violence. This bill was set to introduce a scheme whereby unclassified films and computer games could be advertised together with classified material. Yes, there have been statements by the Attorney-General’s office that there are adequate safeguards by ensuring that the Classification Board or an authorised assessor will deal with the likely classification. This authorised assessor is explained as one with industry experience who has satisfied mandatory training requirements. The Classification Board and industry have made, in my view, dubious and wrong decisions in the past with regard to the classification and appropriateness of viewing material.

In the past I have had to voice my grave concern and ask the Attorney-General to intervene, in the public interest, and have the Classification Board’s decision on these films reviewed by the Classification Review Board. I have done this with, for example, the films Lolita, Anatomy of Hell, Baise-Moi and Irreversible, just to name a few. This bill was supposed to include several safeguards. The government has secured an assurance from the CEOs of major industry groups that, if this scheme is introduced, their organisations will act responsibly and in compliance with the scheme. This is all well and good, but are we willing to risk community classifications standards on these assurances? What happens if these companies move on or do not live up to their side of the bargain? The scheme is only able to be reviewed in three years time. This is a risk I am not willing to take. Another supposed safeguard mentioned is the training of the authorised assessors, who will undertake training provided by the director of the Classification Board.

I cannot support this bill in its current form. I have no confidence in the safeguards that have been provided. When the opportunity arises, I look forward to amendments being introduced, either in this place or in the other place, which will strike out this bill to ensure the protection of community standards relating to the classification of film and computer games. I am extremely disappointed that this bill is going ahead regardless of the objections of many of my colleagues.

***

Peter Slipper MP (Liberal) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 09 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Slipper, Peter, MP (Fisher, LP, Government) Interjector Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Page 86 
Proof Yes
Source House 
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech 
Context Bills
Main Committee Yes 

Second Reading Speech Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (11.20 a.m.)—I am pleased to be able to join this debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007. I suppose it is an aspect of human nature, given the fact that film piracy seems to be quite rampant, that people who commit this film piracy always seem to find new and innovative ways to carry out what they want to achieve. Consequently, movie producers must constantly come up with new and innovative ways to reduce that piracy.

Technological advances, which have wide-ranging benefits, have also opened up new opportunities for those who wish to exploit another to make a quick, easy buck. We all know that, unfortunately, video piracy and computer game counterfeiting is very much the norm these days, and indeed it appears to be a growing problem. It comes down to legislators playing a role in introducing laws that will help control what many people see as a major difficulty. This bill introduces some measures that will support the producers of these products in further addressing what they see as a costly and unwelcome situation. Producers have been forced to severely restrict any pre-release circulation of their productions to reduce the opportunities for pirates to get their hands on a copy—a scenario which, unfortunately, can set in motion a process of unauthorised copying and distribution.

An interesting statistic is that illegal copying is estimated to cost the international movie industry more than $US3.5 billion each year. The estimated cost of video piracy to the Australian film and video industry in 2003 was estimated at $100 million. It must be quite challenging—and I suppose you could say character building, maybe heartbreaking—for those in the film industry who invest an incredible amount of time and energy into creating such a work only to see pirates ripping it off to produce poor-quality copies—and, in some cases, high-quality copies—to make money.

This difficulty is not restricted to film; it affects DVDs and indeed computer games. A study into the cost of counterfeiting computer games in Australia found some $100 million in lost sales for the industry in 2003 due to video game piracy. Further breakdowns suggest $21.8 million in lost profit for suppliers and $4.3 million in lost profit for retailers. It is understandable that copyright owners are not happy with those sorts of losses. Copyright is a system of law designed to protect the property which individuals might have in the matter the subject of the copyright.

Understandably, copyright owners really want to see something done and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007 is an attempt to achieve a legislative solution to what many people believe is an endemic problem. The bill introduces measures that will add clout to the ongoing offensive against the theft and piracy of such works. It will support those who have invested the time, effort and money to deliver these new entertainment products. In attempts to defeat the pirates, producers of films and computer games are often forced to release these productions quickly, thereby giving limited time for the usual classification procedures. As a result, the producers have little time to generate prerelease interest in their products through advertising. This bill introduces measures giving the producers of those films and computer games the ability to proceed with advance marketing and advertising within strict guidelines before the product has received an official rating from the Classification Board. This would enable the producers to build up consumer demand and get the best possible return for their product.

I understand that my colleague the member for Makin expressed some concerns in relation to aspects of this legislation. I can understand that many in the community would be genuinely concerned at the measure in this bill which allows producers to proceed with advance marketing and advertising before the product has received an official rating from the Classification Board. Many people in the community would believe that there ought not to be any advance marketing and advertising until such time as there has been a classification given by the Classification Board. I see that the honourable member for Makin is nodding. That was the point that she was interested in when she made her contribution to the chamber. The government has come to a balanced decision with respect to this and there will be some people who undoubtedly will be happy with it and others, including many parents in the community, who will undoubtedly be outraged by this provision.

Maybe this is a matter that the government can look at again because it is important to get the legislation right. It is easy to work out the reason that this provision has been included in the legislation given the challenges that piracy cause. But, having said that, you really do not want to bring about a situation where inappropriate material could well be publicly advertised before the Classification Board has had the opportunity of determining whether indeed it is fit and suitable for release at all. One can only hope that the producers of films will be somewhat circumspect in what they do. The member for Makin says that they will not be. Hopefully, the only productions that will take advantage of this measure will be those which would not be subject to objections from the general community. The problem is, once you have a provision on the statute books it can be accessed by those who have good intent and equally it can be accessed by those who have ill intent. Overwhelmingly the producers of films and computer games are upright citizens who would want to do the right thing. But unfortunately in a democracy we often have to have laws to protect the community at large from those who might want to do the wrong thing as opposed to the right thing.

The people who are pushing this provision in the bill believe that the changes in the legislation will enable producers to build up consumer demand to get the best possible return for their product. The bill enables the establishment of a set of guidelines for the advertising of as yet unclassified videos, computer games and DVD TV compilations. It also provides for the creation of a scheme by which a product is assessed for its likely classification for the purpose of pre-classification advertising and promotions. This scheme will be self-assessable in the industry. I suspect this is another matter which would cause grief to the honourable member for Makin and indeed many in the community. With respect to DVD compilations of TV shows, the bill enables the Classification Board to be supported in its deliberations by an authorised assessor who can access any additional content on a DVD that accompanies a film production that has already been classified.

I suppose one thing that I have always been concerned about is that sometimes these computer games have elements hidden within them which are not immediately apparent, particularly to those who might be less computer savvy than some young children in our community obviously are. I was talking to a person recently who spends 60 hours a week playing computer games and I just thought that that was absolutely appalling. But people who do use those computer games to that level obviously attain a degree of expertise. I can recall that about 12 or 18 months ago there was a computer game that appeared to be relatively innocent to start with, but lurking within the dim dark recesses of that computer game was material that was actually very dangerous. I suppose that is one of the reasons why many people in the community will have some misgivings about the extra opportunities given to producers of material to advertise that material prior to it actually receiving a classification.

The member for Makin no doubt will continue to vigorously espouse the concerns of many people in the community in relation to that matter. I have to say I think it is a tremendous tragedy that the honourable member for Makin is retiring at the next election. She has been an outstanding campaigner for causes not always popular, but she has always been prepared to stand up and be counted. It has not mattered whether there was political angst to be borne as a result of the very strong stand that the member for Makin has taken, but she has been prepared to do it and I think that the parliament will be the poorer for her—I will not say ‘passing’ because she will obviously be a vigorous, active member of the community—political retirement. I want to commend the member for Makin. She has my unabashed admiration—

Interjection Dr Southcott—Mine too.

Continue Mr SLIPPER—I am pleased that the member for Boothby agrees and I suspect you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, would also have admiration for the member for Makin, as indeed do others right around the parliament. The member for Mitchell is being quite silent, but I am sure he also has tremendous admiration for the member for Makin. What we as a parliament need are more people who are prepared to stand up and be counted regardless of the political costs. I am sorry that the member for Makin has decided not to contest the next election. The government—and I am hopeful that the government will be returned—will certainly miss her constant contributions.

Having said that, these amendments before the chamber will apply to the Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and I commend the bill to the House on that basis, subject to the reservations that I understand many people in the community would have in relation to aspects of the bill.

***

Alan Cadman MP (Labor) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 09 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Cadman, Alan, MP (Mitchell, LP, Government) Interjector Burke, Anna, MP; Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
Page 88 
Proof Yes
Source House 
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech 
Context Bills
Main Committee Yes 

Second Reading Speech Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (11.32 a.m.)—I too want to pay tribute to the member for Makin for her capacity to raise difficult issues in the parliament and to truly represent the people in her electorate. I have visited her electorate many times and the way in which Trish Draper is regarded by the people who live in Adelaide—she is just a legend—must be seen to be believed. She has contact with all levels of her community and they all respect, appreciate and like her. A few do not vote for her, but they should. I think if she stayed there a little longer she would persuade more to vote for her than currently do.

Trish has taken up causes relating to women and children, particularly young children, and to the prospect of the abuse of young children. I think my first introduction to her courage in this situation was when the House was considering changes to the classification of films and television. Trish played a role in bringing forward some horrible films that really were pornographic and that related to the abuse of children, and she was courageous in drawing the attention both of this House and of the Attorney-General at the time, Daryl Williams, to the problems he was creating by refusing to classify certain films, which I will not name, in a way that would have completely restricted their use.

Trish sought always to protect the safety of women and children, and today we have the federal government seeking to protect the lives and ways of women and children in the Northern Territory’s Indigenous community—taking strong steps to ban pornographic material, taking strong steps to make sure that classifications in the Northern Territory are observed and that material is removed. The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, is going after anything he can to make sure that pornography and the abuse of children does not continue in Indigenous communities. But here in this city, in Canberra, it is being created. It is being created in this territory to go to another territory.

The government will take action against the Northern Territory, but another area where action needs to be taken is in the general area of classifications. The waffle that the former Attorney-General Daryl Williams put up has made it very difficult for classifiers. It is such an open and undefined area that I would hate to be a classifier because you are always going to be wrong; you are going to be too harsh or too easy on material placed before you. The lack of clarity in SCAG, the meeting of Attorneys-General of Australia, was in my view a detrimental step. Before he retired Minister Williams said that if the scheme proved to be more open under his regime he would change it. He never had that opportunity. I do not know whether he had any intention of doing so, but his statement at the time was that he would review the classification of film and television.

Is this a prudish approach? No. Some may think that of me, but I think that adults have a right to watch material even though it may be destructive of their minds. I find it destructive, from the glimpses I have had of it. I do not like it one little bit. I find it extremely difficult to scrub it from my consciousness. I assume that everybody is somewhat the same, although some seem impervious to it—but not the Indigenous community, because night after night, day after day, they have been watching pornographic material and abuse of children—

Interjection Ms Burke—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: we are swaying from the topic somewhat extraordinarily, and I really ask that the member comes back to the legislation at hand today.

Continue Mr CADMAN—You are sensitive to this issue.

Interjection Ms Burke—No, I am not. I think this is an abuse of the parliamentary—

Continue Mr CADMAN—No it is not.

Interjection Ms Burke—It is.

Interjection The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! The member for Mitchell has the call.

Continue Mr CADMAN—The abuse by the Indigenous community indicates that there will be a softening of process if there is no certainty in classification. The current classification guidelines show that there is no certainty. The classifiers cannot do their job. The review board cannot do their job. What is happening with this legislation? We are bringing a new group of material into a classification process that currently exists. Therefore, to describe what we are doing we need to know what the current situation is. I have described it to some degree. Unclassified films, computer games and publications can be brought now into a system. There is going to be more consistency now between different types of media than has formerly been the case.

One area of interest to me—and I know the member for Makin was aware of this too—is the abuse in the series Big Brother. That series, which was created outside the studios and sold to Channel 10, overstepped normal classifications. I am thankful that there has been a bringing together of the classification of programs for film and television, video games, computer games and publications and unclassified films. I think that what is being done is an advantage. However, I hold, with the member for Makin, some really serious concerns about some aspects of this process. The advertising program has been changed so that advertising can go ahead at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way on an estimation of a likely classification made by classifiers employed by the firms providing the material. That is my understanding. That, for me, has raised some concern because there is a training program for this privatisation process. For Big Brother there were two classifiers. They are currently surveying the material as it is being made and after it has been produced. They did not do their job. That was obvious and it was proved later that they did not do their job.

We are seeking some certainty that the training process in this instance will provide classifiers who are going to stick with the rules and who will be able to apply with sufficient vigour the processes desired by the parliament. The parliament is very clear and the minister has made it clear what his intention is. My concern is: will it be tight enough for the individuals who have previously strayed or individuals like those who have strayed?

There is a simplification of the rules. It is supposed to provide a scheme which operates effectively in the current entertainment market. It is supposed to provide better information for consumers and promote compliance. They are the objectives of this legislation. So I have that one concern, as expressed.

Unclassified films and computer games can be advertised with classified material only if an assessment has been made by an authorised assessor of likely classification. Such an assessment can be made only by the Classification Board or an appropriately trained or authorised industry assessor. That is very clear. That is what this legislation does. Industry assessors have strict mandatory training requirements on an ongoing basis—that is, initially and at annual refreshment courses. Training must be approved by the Director of the Classification Board and cannot be training completed for other classification systems. For example, people who assess content for the purpose of broadcasting will not be considered as adequately trained or authorised for this scheme. There we have perhaps a difference, and I have pointed to that difference. This indicates that this is going to be a more rigid and certain process—and I hope it is. But our experience has not been good in this area.

A new advertising scheme will eliminate unnecessary red tape and clarify legal requirements to improve compliance. It is limited to unclassified films and computer games only, and it will not permit unclassified submittable publications to be advertised and will not permit sexually explicit material likely to be classified as 18+ or material likely to be refused classification to be advertised. So there are two areas that cannot be advertised.

There are all sorts of combinations in the ways in which advertising can work. I have seen appalling advertising of late-night television taking place at family viewing times. I have been to cinemas and seen inappropriate advertising or trailers of coming films prior to the presentation of a G-rated film. I have seen those things happen; they are things that the public do not want. The public want to know with certainty that what they are going to see is what they expect to see. The classification guidelines have been a problem and continue to be a problem. There is a prospect of people enjoying salacious, dangerous and violent activities over the internet and one on one with video games. That is a real problem and a real possibility. I am pleased that we are bringing video games into this process. It needs to happen and it is a good thing that it is happening.

I have mentioned the problems with classifiers. I move on to the capacity to classify episodes. This is an area where I have previously sought clarification because it appears—and I may be completely mistaken—that a series such as Big Brother could be classified on the average viewing quality rather than on specific episodes. That is where I would seek some clarification. If there is an episode that is off, out of classification, wrongly typed for what is presented, then that episode really sets the standard for the whole lot. It is not an average that is being sought by the community; it is for the unexpected, the shock, the thing that parents do not wish children to see and that they are not prepared for. That episodical inconsistency needs addressing.

Then there are the safeguards for advertising: the Director of the Classification Board can call in advertisements to the board for approval and a distributor must within three business days submit to the Classification Board for approval a copy of each advertisement used or intended to be used. So there is capacity for the board if they are concerned to intervene. It will address advertisements that the board considers describe, depict or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence, or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be approved. It also addresses material that is used or likely to be used in a way that is offensive to a reasonable adult or advertisements for films or computer games that are likely to be refused classification—and I think also those classified 18+, but I could be wrong there.

There is also a revocation process. The authority of assessors to continue to make assessments under the scheme can be withdrawn if they have fallen down in the eyes of the director. There is a capacity also for the director of classifications to revoke distributors’ ability to participate in the scheme if they transgress. The scheme proposes that the director can revoke a Classification Board decision on the likely classification of an unclassified film or computer game. Under the existing arrangements for exemptions for cinema release films there is an anomaly that allows films likely to be classified PG to be advertised during exhibition of G-rated films. This will be removed. I am pleased about this because that is the circumstance I described previously in my remarks.

There is going to be a community liaison scheme, whereby a community committee is going to monitor compliance with the scheme. There is going to be education of the industry about the obligations and, where appropriate, the referral of matters to law enforcement agencies. There will be a three-year review. The government has consulted—and I have received papers for consultation. I want to thank the Attorney for endeavouring to bring my views into this scheme. I continue to express doubts because I have been bitten twice in this area, although not by the current Attorney. I am really concerned about the power of the industry and the capacity for state attorneys-general to take the easy option that will put the Attorney-General in a difficult situation. I would like to see that change because I believe that I am expressing the views of the community.

I am not seeking to censor material; I am seeking to have greater certainty in the way in which things are done and have no failures. It is the nasty failures that produce the pain here, in my electorate and in families. It is with the unexpected and the nasty that people want to push the boundaries. This industry is notorious for pushing the boundaries. It will try to get away with the most subtle suggestions of things occurring. In some of the film material that I have seen—and I say again how I hated seeing some of those clips—there was violent and horrible treatment of human beings. If people want to see that and it is within the classifications of 18+ or RC, then so be it.

From my perspective, we need greater certainty. I would be wrong to say that this does not move towards greater certainty, but there are still areas of concern. They have not been completely removed, but I am looking forward to a change. I hope that this is the start of the change that I have been looking forward to for a long time. Certain decisions made by the previous Attorney-General worried me at the time and nothing that has occurred since has alleviated that concern, and I guess that is the next area for attention.

I thank the House for its time and I thank the member for Makin and once more pay tribute to the member for Makin for her courage and determination to make sure that families and family living have the prospect of stability and not abuse. There is too much abuse between family members, particularly family members that are not blood relatives, and we have seen an extreme reflection of that in the Northern Territory.

***

Philip Ruddock MP (Liberal) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 09 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP, Government) Page 90
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills Main 
Committee Yes

Speech Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Attorney-General) (11.50 a.m.)—in reply—I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007—the member for Gellibrand, who I understand has confirmed the opposition’s support for the measure, the member for Grey, the member for Makin, the member for Fisher and the member for Mitchell. I hope I will be able to positively contribute to some of the points that have been made. The classification scheme is a difficult scheme because it is one that requires unanimity of view if you are going to alter the classification code and guidelines. That is not easy to achieve. There may be a view that these are issues that you might be able to use the corporations power and ease the states out of, but that has not been a position that people have argued or put before and, when you are trying to work through difficult issues, you try to ensure that you do get appropriate unanimity of view, which reflects the spectrum of views that I think we have heard in this debate.

I would have thought that one of the aspects of interest to the member for Makin is that normally there is a coalition of view in South Australia involving the South Australian government and its Attorney and the member for Makin’s views. I find that. In fact, in relation to the efforts to enable a wider classification group of categories for computer games, it has been the South Australian and the Commonwealth’s resistance to that measure that to date has ensured that it has not occurred, and I think games are very different to films, videos and the like.

I guess the member for Makin may also be interested in other legislation that we will be dealing with during these sittings which deals with the classification of products that may be seen to advocate terrorism. I sought amendments to the classification code and guidelines and thought from comments that had been made by some premiers and the Leader of the Opposition that I would have very strong support for the efforts that I had embarked upon there. Interestingly, when we went before the ministers, I had support from New South Wales and again South Australia but I did not get support from Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory or even the ACT. We will have that debate on another day, but the Commonwealth is persisting with an amendment to the act to achieve that objective.

This issue is one in which we have tried to get a balance. At the moment films can be advertised where there is an expectation that they will be for general viewing. We get something like 100 films advertised now under arrangements which will not be or are not as comprehensive as these in terms of the vetting of them. I am not saying that there has been a bad experience with those 100, but the arrangements that we are putting in place through these amendments are to implement measures to the classification practices in recognition that those who now cannot advertise and seek to do so need to have a basis upon which that can be obtained.

These reforms are to reduce the burden and cost to industry where they have to wait until classification, and to enable—and the point has been made by some—them to deal with advertising products in advance of classification where there is the potential for piracy to undermine their product if they cannot advertise and get a product on the market quickly.

The bill has been developed to respond to industry concerns. We did consult widely; the member for Mitchell mentioned that. The public discussion paper on the scheme was released in August 2006, and overwhelmingly positive comments were received. The relevant industry stakeholders have been consulted and agree with the proposals. The states and territories, as I have mentioned, were consulted and obviously had to agree.

The bill contains two areas of reform to classification procedures. It changes the way the classification act deals with advertisements for unclassified product and television series that are released for sale and hire. In relation to the television schemes—the member for Mitchell raised some questions there—although the content of television series is already assessed before broadcasting, the television codes of practice do not pick up the full scope of the principles contained in the classification act and the national classification code and guidelines and that is something we are seeking to address. There is different training and the Big Brother matter brought that to our attention.

In relation to those series that might be aggregated and sold separately, and for which advertising might be undertaken, I am advised that the scheme will require the compilation to be classified at the highest classification. So if one episode is higher than the rest, it is that higher level that has to apply.

The bill will replace the prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games with a new scheme to allow advertising subject to conditions which will be set out in the Commonwealth instrument. A new advertising message—a strong message—will be established advising consumers to check the classification. This new advertising message will remain relevant for consumers even where the advertising message has been superseded by the actual classification. An industry based self-assessment scheme will be introduced whereby the likely classification of an unclassified film or computer game is assessed before the advertising can take place. The assessor must be appropriately trained and authorised by the director.

A stronger commensurate audience rule will be part of the package. This means that advertisements for films and computer games likely to be classified PG may no longer be screened to an audience for a G film computer game.

The second initiative is to extend the industry based self-assessment scheme to include films that are compilations of episodes of television series. We have mentioned that already. The bill establishes a scheme where a person appropriately trained and authorised by the director may recommend to the board classification of the box set of episodes of a television series and the board will remain responsible for the actual classification decision.

Both self-assessment schemes are based on the current approach to classification of computer games, which has been operating over 10 years—they will not be expanding that—and modelled on the reforms implemented for the additional content on DVD.

As mentioned earlier, the bill includes a broad suite of safeguards. I am confident that the integrity of the scheme will be maintained and consumers will continue to receive consistent and accurate advice. The amendments contained in the bill will ensure that the national classification scheme continues to serve industry and the public well into the future. The amendments recognise changes in the entertainment media and ensure the scheme will not provide an inappropriate regulatory burden on industry. The reforms will also ensure that consumers continue to obtain reliable information about their entertainment choices.

In the context of the discussion, particularly the matters raised by the members for Makin, Fisher and Mitchell, I took out the actual safeguards that I mentioned and I want to go through them, if I may. They are important safeguards and they are to protect the community from misleading and incorrect or grossly inadequate assessments being made. Breaches of the requirements for the advertising of unclassified material will be added to the range of compliance issues monitored and identified by community liaison staff, and they will continue to meet with traders and industry representatives to investigate complaints through a program of site visits in each jurisdiction. As you know, the Classification Board has a new director and he will be in a position—because the existing powers under state and territory legislation allow him to—to call in advertisements for approval. If something went up that had been classified by a classifier, was reported by the community liaison people as being a matter of concern and came to the director’s attention and he said, ‘This is clearly outside our guidelines,’ he would be able to call it in. Following the call-in, the board must refuse to approve the advertisement if it meets the criteria outlined in section 29(4) through to 29(7) of the Commonwealth act.

The board must revoke an assessment of a likely classification of an unclassified computer game or film where the information provided to the board on which the likely classification was based was unreliable—for example, if the applicant did not include relevant information about the classifiable elements of the film or the computer game and that material were not properly entertained. The bill empowers a legislative instrument to impose sanctions on a person who is or was authorised as an assessor and to find that person unacceptable. The director may revoke the authorised advertising assessor’s authorisation where an assessor does not reveal classifiable elements in its report; where an assessment was misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate; where the assessor has not completed the mandatory training; and where the assessor has prepared two or more assessments that contain misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate information. A person who is assessing these matters will be deprived of their capacity to make such an assessment if, when they classify a film, they are found to have classified it on the wrong basis.

The instrument will provide sanctions for unacceptable use of the scheme by a distributor, publisher or industry applicant. Under the instrument, the director may bar a person from using the scheme for up to three years by issuing a notice. A barring notice may impact upon a person’s business by making the applicant unable to use the advertising self-assessment scheme. That is a very important safeguard.

The important point I make is that there is a capacity to review those decisions and that is in the interests of fairness and the AAT is involved. I did foreshadow that there would be a comprehensive review of the new arrangements to be conducted three years after operation. The review will consider the effectiveness of the new arrangements, including compliance and ensuring that consumers are not exposed to inappropriate material. My colleague the member for Makin has expressed concern that this review may only happen after three years, so I just make the point that I would be—and I hope I am in a position to be—able to deal with these issues and that, if problems were identified, the review could occur earlier. I give that assurance to the honourable member.

I know that, in relation to these issues, those who would like to see some fundamental changes—which have not been possible under a regime that is, in fact, a cooperative model—often feel that in these debates we can extend greater supervision. I welcome the input of views that help and involve me in my discussions with my state colleagues to continue pressing the barriers, but I do make this point: at the moment we have a scheme which is unfair to some because they cannot advertise and which permits advertising that is not subject to the safeguards that we are proposing here. While some may think that the safeguards are not strong enough, I simply make the point that I think they are a significant advance on where we are. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to continue their support of the measure.

******

 

Aboriginal Pornography restrictions Bill

This week the government introduced the bill that seeks to restrict Aboriginal access to pornography in the Northern Territory. Before proceeding it is work reading what the original report had to say in relation to Pornography.

Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse 2007

24. Pornography

The issue of children’s and the community’s exposure to pornography was raised regularly in submissions and consultations with the Inquiry. The use of pornography as a way to encourage or prepare children for sex (“grooming”) has featured heavily in recent prominent cases. 

In written submissions to the Inquiry from community groups and individuals, concern was expressed about the availability of pornography in communities and children’s exposure to pornographic material, in particular videos and DVDs. This was as a result of poor supervision, overcrowding in houses and acceptance or normalisation of this material.

It was subsequently confirmed at the regional meetings conducted by the Inquiry in February and March 2007, that pornography was a major factor in communities and that it should be stopped. The daily diet of sexually explicit material has had a major impact, presenting young and adolescent Aboriginals with a view of mainstream sexual practice and behaviour which is jaundiced. It encourages them to act out the fantasies they see on screen or in magazines. Exposure to pornography was also blamed for the sexualised behaviour evident in quite young children. It was recommended that possible strategies to restrict access to this material, generally and by children in particular, be investigated.

Normalising violence 

The issue raised in some submissions was that violence, including both physical and sexual violence, has become such an accepted behaviour in Aboriginal communities that it is now an integral part of children’s socialisation and this acceptance has now been normalised and crossed generations. That this violence exists within a context of alcohol abuse, cannabis misuse and gambling is also accepted as normal.

One submission suggested that in environments where violence was not prevalent intervention was more likely when there was a concern about a child. However, where violence was seen as normal, intervention was less likely. This may occur because services also adjust to the behaviour and start to make judgments based on this normality. 

Pay television 

The evidence appears to be that the Austar Pay TV service is readily available in communities. There was some suggestion of concentrated selling of subscriptions in those communities. The Inquiry was advised by Austar representatives that there was no “outbound” selling in the remote parts of the Territory, either by telephone or personal visits. It was said that there were simply no sales staff available for that work. All subscriptions were purchased “inbound”, that is, by customers contacting Austar. Austar noted that, in regard to sexually explicit programming, blocking devices were available which can be applied to particular film classifications (e.g. to bar access to R-rated programs), but it was conceded that none of the instructions for these were in languages other than English. 

Pornography is an issue as are music film clips and various television programs. Central Australian community 

Porn is available in the community – SBS and Austar are probably the main sources. 
Service Providers at a Central Australian community 

We are worried about the influence of television and magazines. In particular, pornographic videos and music video clips. 
East Arnhem community 

There is too much cannabis and too many blue movies coming in to the community and that it was often white fellas who would come in and sell the pornographic DVDs. 
Community – Central Desert region

They said that they are not aware of pornography being a big problem but they were aware of American movies, in particular violent and gangster movies, having an influence and they said that the kids in the community were constantly using the term, “mother fucker”. 
Men’s meeting – Katherine Region. 

Community environment 

The other difficulty relates to overcrowding in houses and poor general care, discipline and management of children. Because of overcrowding, drinking, gambling and the like, children are often left to entertain themselves. It is almost inevitable that in those circumstances there could be substantial exposure to sexually explicit material. For that matter, because of the overcrowding, it is more than likely that children would be exposed to adults, and others, engaging in sexual activities within the household. 

It is an offence under the Criminal Code to intentionally expose children to indecent material. In the usual household, it might be hard to establish such an intention. However, it is suggested that bringing the existence of this legal provision to the attention of community members might focus their minds on the real problem to be resolved. Section 132 (2)(e) provides : 

Any person who without legitimate reason, intentionally exposes a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent object or indecent film, video tape, audio tape, photograph or book; is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. 

Once again, education is required. It is unlikely that access to pornography itself or violence in movies and other material can be effectively prevented.

Recommendation 

87. That an education campaign be conducted to inform communities of: 

a. the meaning of and rationale for film and television show classifications 

b. the prohibition contained in the Criminal Code making it an offence to intentionally expose a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent object or film, video or audio tape or photograph or book and the implications generally for a child’s wellbeing of permitting them to watch or see such sexually explicit material..

***

Explanation of the Bill

Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007
EM type EM 
Bill number 07144
Date 07 August, 2007 
Database Explanatory memoranda
Source House

Schedule 1 – Prohibited material

Summary

This Schedule inserts a new Part 10 into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act), which contains measures banning the possession of pornographic material within prescribed areas and prohibiting the supply of pornographic material in prescribed areas. Prescribed areas has the same meaning as in what will become the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007. The new Part also gives police all necessary powers in prescribed areas to seize and destroy material which may be prohibited under the new Part 10.

The amendments take effect on the 28th day after Royal Assent. This provides time for people within prescribed areas who possess material which was previously legal but is prohibited under the provisions of the new Part 10 to dispose of that material.

Background

As part of its emergency response to the situation in Northern Territory Indigenous communities, the government is implementing a number of measures to reduce the prevalence of pornography in prescribed areas.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Commonwealth Classification Act) facilitates the operation of the national classification scheme, a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth, States and Territories.

The Classification Board and Classification Review Board classifies films, computer games and some publications, applying the criteria in the Commonwealth Classification Act, the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines.

For the purposes of the emergency response, pornography has been defined to include films that are classified X18+ and films or computer games that are classified RC (‘refused classification’) or are unclassified but would be likely to be classified X18+ or RC. The measures also cover publications which are classified Category 1 or Category 2 restricted or RC or are unclassified but would be likely to be classified Category 1 or Category 2 restricted or RC.

Under the national classification scheme the X18+ classification is a special and legally restricted classification for material containing real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity between consenting adults. Publications which contain sexually explicit content must be classified Category 1 or Category 2 restricted depending on the impact of the content. Films and publications classified X18+ and Category 1 or Category 2 restricted respectively are legally restricted to adults.

A film, computer game or publication will be classified RC where, among other things, it depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, to the extent that it should not be classified.

Under the cooperative scheme, State and Territory governments determine what material can be sold in their jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies in each jurisdiction are responsible for enforcing classification restrictions

The Northern Territory Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act 2005 (the Northern Territory Classification Act) provides the framework for prohibitions on dealing with pornography of different classification categories and enforcement of these prohibitions within the Northern Territory. Restrictions apply to the sale, exhibition, attendance at and copying of films and computer games which are unclassified, or classified RC or films which are classified X18+. In addition, there are restrictions on the sale or delivery of publications which are unclassified, classified RC or classified Category 1 Restricted or Category 2 Restricted. Although X18+ classified material is restricted in the Northern Territory, unlike in the States, the sale and hire of X18+ material is permitted.

The Little Children are Sacred report revealed that the availability of pornography in Indigenous communities is a factor that contributes to child sexual abuse in those communities, being used to groom children for sex, and normalising inappropriate sexualised and violent behaviour in children. Despite the restrictions imposed by the Northern Territory Classification Act, both X18+ classified and illegal material are readily available and are being illegally displayed to children.

As part of the implementation of the government’s response to the crisis in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth Classification Act will be amended to include prohibitions on the possession, control and supply of RC, X18+ and Category 1 or Category 2 Restricted material, as well as unclassified material likely to be classified in those categories, in prescribed areas. The amendments also provide for police powers to seize and destroy prohibited material so that material to which children should not be exposed is removed from these communities.

The amendments to the Classification Act will apply only to prescribed areas, as defined in what will become the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007.

Explanation of the changes

Item 1 inserts a new Part 10, entitled ‘Material prohibited in prescribed areas’, into the Commonwealth Classification Act.

Part 10 consists of four Divisions: Division 1 provides for preliminary matters, including definitions, which apply only for the purposes of Part 10; Division 2 sets out offences relating to the possession, control and supply of prohibited material; Division 3 makes provision for the seizure and forfeiture of prohibited material; and Division 4 provides for miscellaneous matters.

Division 1 – Preliminary

New section 99 – Definitions

Aside from the definitions addressed in further detail below, most of the definitions contained in Part 10 are relatively self-explanatory and do not require further explanation.

The definition of police officer refers to the definition of constable in the Crimes Act 1914. Constable is defined in that Act to mean ‘a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force or police service of a State or Territory’.

This broad definition enables the Australian Federal Police and police from States and Territories other than the Northern Territory to assist in the enforcement of the prohibitions in Part 10.

The definition of prescribed area will be the same as that contained in what will become the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007. This will provide a consistency of approach between the restrictions on alcohol contained in the Liquor Act (NT) and the prohibition upon films, computer games and publications. Making the prescribed areas consistent will also make it easier for people within those areas to adhere to the prohibitions and will simplify enforcement.

The definition of prohibited material refers to two further definitions, level 1 prohibited material and level 2 prohibited material. These are used to differentiate between different offences for the possession of material.

The definition of level 1 prohibited material refers to:

publications classified as Category 1 restricted or Category 2 restricted;

unclassified publications that would be likely to be classified Category 1 restricted or Category 2 restricted;

films classified X18+;

unclassified films that would be likely to be classified X18+; or

prohibited advertisements.

Under the National Classification Code, Category 2 Restricted Publications are those publications (except RC publications) that:

(a) explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or

(b) depict, describe or express revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult and are unsuitable for a minor to see or read.

Category 1 Restricted Publications are publications (except RC publications and Category 2 restricted publications) that:

(a) explicitly depict nudity, or describe or impliedly depict sexual or sexually related activity between consenting adults, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or

(b) describe or express in detail violence or sexual activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or

(c) are unsuitable for a minor to see or read.

X18+ films are films (except RC films) that:

(a) contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language, or fetishes or depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; and

(b) are unsuitable for a minor to see.

The categories as set out in the Code are given further detail in the classification Guidelines.

‘Prohibited advertisement’ at (e) refers to an advertisement for a film, publication or computer game which is, or would be likely to be, refused approval under the Classification Act. This has been included in the definition to ensure that high level material cannot escape the provisions of Part 10 by being presented as an advertisement that is not otherwise classifiable. Advertisements for films, publications and computer games are expressly excluded from the definitions of films, publications and computer games under the Classification Act.

The definition of level 2 prohibited material refers to material described in the Classification Act as:

refused classification (RC) films, computer games or publications; or

unclassified films, computer games or publications that would be likely to be classified RC.

Under the Code, RC films, computer games and publications are RC films, computer games and publications that:

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or

(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be , a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or

(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.

In addition, RC computer games are those that are unsuitable for a minor to see or play.

The RC category is given further detail in the classification Guidelines.

The definition of supply is not an exhaustive list, but outlines some of the ways in which prohibited material may be placed in a person’s possession or control.

New section 100 – Concurrent operation of State and Territory laws

The provision clarifies that Part 10 is to apply in addition to State and Territory legislation, and Northern Territory law in particular, insofar as it applies to the prescribed areas. It contemplates that there may be a potential overlap between existing or future State and Territory legislation and the provisions of Part 10. Where an overlap occurs, this provision preserves the operation of the State and Territory legislation.

Such an overlap may occur, for example, where a person in a State sells and delivers X18+ films to a person in a prescribed area. The sale of X18+ material is prohibited under State law. The action may also breach the provisions of Part 10. Both prohibitions are intended to operate, so that Part 10 does not limit the actions to be taken by State law enforcement bodies to enforce the existing prohibitions on sale of this material.

Division 2 – Offences

The offence provisions have been drafted to operate in conjunction with the Criminal Code in relation to issues such as the required intention, knowledge or recklessness. In addition, the possession offences differentiate between possession of material that is currently restricted to adults, but accommodated within the classification system, and material which is or would be Refused Classification.

New section 101 – Possession or control of level 1 prohibited material in prescribed areas.

This provision makes the possession or control, in a prescribed area, of level 1 prohibited material an offence. Unlike existing offences in some State and Territory classification enforcement legislation, the prohibition applies to mere possession of the prohibited material without any intention of copying or selling.

The penalty for this offence is 50 penalty units. Section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 currently provides that one penalty unit is $110.

New section 102 – Possession or control of level 2 prohibited material in prescribed areas.

This provision makes the mere possession or control, in a prescribed area, of level 2 prohibited material (as defined in section 91) an offence.

The penalty for this offence is 100 penalty units. The penalty is higher than for possession or control of level 1 prohibited material as the impact of the level 2 material is higher.

New section 103 – Supplying prohibited material in and to prescribed areas

This provision prohibits the supply of prohibited materials in and to prescribed areas. For the prohibition on prohibited materials in prescribed areas to be effective it is necessary to prevent material from entering these areas by prohibiting delivering or sending such material to those communities.

The provision applies to activities conducted outside of the prescribed areas and jurisdictions other than the Northern Territory. It is intended to stop material at its source by preventing mail order companies sending material to a community, and residents or visitors sending or delivering material into a community. Supply has been given a broad definition to capture material provided to a person in a prescribed area, whether or not there is a commercial element to the transaction.

The provision is modelled on ‘trafficking’ provisions in the Criminal Code. However, because trafficking under the Criminal Code includes an intention to sell, the term supply has been used and defined to include distribution not for profit. This is intended to ensure that commercial traffickers are appropriately covered, but also better suits the cultural situation and the policy objective of Part 10.

Subsection (1) creates a general offence for the supply, preparation for supply, transportation for supply, guarding or concealing prohibited material for supply or possession of prohibited material with the intention to supply, to a person in a prescribed area.

Section 5.6 of the Criminal Code applies to this offence, which means that intention is the fault element for the elements of the offence in paragraph 103(1)(a), and recklessness is the fault element for the elements of the offence in paragraphs 103(1)(b)-(c).

The penalty for this offence is 100 penalty units.

Subsection (2) creates a separate offence for the supply, preparation for supply, transportation for supply, guarding or concealing prohibited material for supply or possession of prohibited material with the intention to supply, to a person in a prescribed area where the supply is for five or more items of prohibited material. Five or more items is considered to be a quantity likely to indicate a commercial transaction, or to indicate that the items are not intended solely for personal use.

The penalty for supplying five or more items is 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. The differentiation between penalties for general supply and supply of five or more items ensures that while it is an offence to supply any prohibited material, very small quantities of material are not subject to unduly heavy penalties.

Subsection (3) creates a presumption that a person who sends, transports, conceals or possesses five or more items of prohibited material in a prescribed area intends to supply it. The reversal of the onus of proof in this context is considered appropriate to assist in prosecutions of people trafficking in commercial quantities of prohibited material.

Subsection (4) provides that the presumption created by subsection (3) may be rebutted. Under section 13.4 of the Criminal Code, the defendant bears the legal burden for establishing that he or she did not have an intention to supply.

New section 104 – Body corporate managers taken to have committed offences

This provision provides for the liability of a person involved in any governance, management or administration of the business of a body corporate where that body corporate has committed an offence under Part 10. This is to ensure the persons responsible for supplying prohibited material to prescribed areas are personally held accountable.

Subsection (1) provides for the strict liability of a body corporate manager (as defined for the purposes of Part 10) for any offences against Part 10 committed by a body corporate.

Subsection (2) provides a defence for body corporate managers where an offence was committed without their knowledge and where that manager has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence. Under section 13.4 of the Criminal Code, the defendant bears the legal burden for establishing the elements of the defence.

This provision is consistent with the current provisions of Part XV of the Northern Territory Classification Act.

New section 105 – Division does not apply to postal services

This provision ensures that Australia Post and other operators of postal and parcel services will not be guilty of an offence under Part 10 if, in the normal course of providing a postal service, they supply prohibited material to prescribed area.

This allows normal postal and parcel services to continue without placing a burden on Australia Post or other operators to scrutinise the material they are transmitting, which would be unduly onerous and would conflict with community expectations that mail remains confidential.

Division 3 – Seizure and forfeiture of prohibited material

New section 106 – Seizure of prohibited material

This provision gives police the power to seize any material found within a prescribed area, where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it is prohibited material under Part 10.

The ability to seize potentially prohibited material, without obtaining court orders or convictions, is necessary to ensure this material is removed from prescribed areas without delay.

Entry and search powers provided for under Part 1AA of the Crimes Act 1914 apply. Part 1AA provides for entry and search of premises only under warrant or with consent.

The Government will consider further whether additional powers are required to allow for a police officer to enter and search premises within a prescribed community without a warrant in certain circumstances.

This amendment would be made to address concerns about the potential limitations of relying upon the Crimes Act 1914 warrants regime to enforce the offences under Part 10. Those concerns include restricted access to magistrates and courts in remote areas and the risk that evidence will be lost or moved during the time it takes police to obtain search warrants.

New section 107 – Seizure notices

This provision imposes a requirement upon the police officer who has seized material under Part 10 to issue a notice to the owner of the material or the person from whom the material was seized, unless the owner cannot be identified and the material was not seized from a person.

Subsection (3) provides that the notice must include certain information, including the grounds upon which the material was seized (that is, that the material is suspected to be prohibited material), procedures for the possible return of the material under Part 10, and that material is forfeited to the Commonwealth if it is not returned to the owner.

New section 108 – Return of seized material – on request

This provision enables the owner of seized material to make a request for the return of the material to the police officer who seized the material.

The police officer must return the material to the owner if the police officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the material is not prohibited material under Part 10 and the request is made by the owner within 60 days after the date of the seizure notice or, if a seizure notice wasn’t served, 60 days from the seizure of the material.

This provides a simple mechanism for return of material if it is not prohibited material. This could be demonstrated, for example, by a search of the Classification Board’s classification decisions, which is available at www.classification.gov.au.

New section 109 – Return of seized material – application to magistrate

Where a police officer refuses to return seized material on a request of the owner made under Part 10, the owner may then apply to a magistrate for an order that the material should be returned. An application to the magistrate under this provision must be made within 60 days of the police officer’s refusal.

Subsection (3) provides that the magistrate must order that the material be returned if he or she is satisfied that the material is not prohibited material.

This provision ensures that owners of material seized under Part 10 have a further recourse for the return of that material if the police officer who seized material believes it is prohibited material and refuses to return it.

It also allows for a magistrate to determine whether or not he or she considers the material to be prohibited material under Part 10.

New section 110 – Seized material forfeited to the Commonwealth

Material that is seized under Part 10 and that is not returned to its owner under section 108 or 109 is forfeited to the Commonwealth and must be destroyed, disposed of or otherwise dealt with as the Minister directs.

This forfeiture provision does not rely on a conviction being obtained before material is forfeited. The emphasis of these provisions is in removing inappropriate material from circumstances where children may access it, not on prosecutions and convictions.

New section 111 – Relationship of Division to other laws

Similarly to new section 100, this provision is intended to ensure that the enactment of these new offences does not in any way limit the operations of law enforcement agencies under existing laws, nor inadvertently adversely affect powers conferred by other legislation.

Division 4 – Miscellaneous

New section 112 – Evidence

Section 87 of the Commonwealth Classification Act provides for the Director, on application, to issue a certificate about action taken, or not taken, under the Commonwealth Classification Act. These evidentiary certificates are used by enforcement agencies in conducting prosecutions under State and Territory classification enforcement legislation, to provide evidence that particular material has, for example, not been submitted for classification. This provision provides for the use of these evidentiary certificates in proceedings under this Part.

New section 113 – Compensation for acquisition of property

This provision provides a mechanism for the payment of compensation, should the operation of the new Part result in an acquisition of property for which, under the Constitution, compensation on just terms is payable, but has not been provided.

New section 114 – Minister may repeal provisions of this Part

This provision allows the Minister, by legislative instrument, to repeal some or all of the new provisions. Allowing for repeal by legislative instrument, effective when the instrument is made, means that, if circumstances arise whereby some or all of the provisions are no longer required, those provisions may be repealed without the delay involved in enacting repealing legislation. Repeal of certain provisions may be necessary, for example, if the Northern Territory enacts legislation which prohibits possession of some or all of the material which is dealt with by the Commonwealth provisions.

Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 would allow the Minister to repeal or revoke the repealing legislative instrument, and so does not apply to an instrument made by the Minister under this section.

This provision also exempts instruments made under it from the disallowance and sunsetting provisions of the Legislative Instruments Act. A repealing instrument is analogous to a Proclamation commencing legislation, and similarly should not be subject to disallowance. As the effect of disallowance would be to revive offence provisions, this could cause legislative confusion, practical difficulties and potential injustice to those in the prescribed areas.

The instrument is exempt from the sunsetting regime because new section 115 sunsets all provisions of the Part after five years. It would be otiose and confusing for an instrument which repealed some or all of the Part to be sunsetted after the Part itself has ceased to have effect.

New section 115 – Sunset provison

As they are part of the emergency response, the provisions of the Part will cease to have effect after five years.

***

Mal Brough MP (Liberal) Comments on the Bill

Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007: Second Reading
Date 07 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Brough, Mal, MP (Longman, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs, LP, Government) 
Page 12
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 
Main Committee No

Size 19Kb

Speech Mr BROUGH (Longman—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) (1.25 p.m.)—I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill complements the new principal legislation introduced by the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 and the welfare reform amendments provided by the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007.

In introducing the principal legislation, it has been noted that the government’s emergency response in the Northern Territory is all about the safety and wellbeing of children.

This bill deals mainly with banning certain pornography, issues to do with increased policing, Commonwealth and Northern Territory infrastructure, and access to Northern Territory Aboriginal land.

This is an emergency situation in the Northern Territory and we need to act quickly. Each and every day, children are being abused. We need strong powers so that we are not weighed down by unnecessary red tape and talkfests, and can focus on doing what needs to be done and doing it now.

The cycle of unemployment and welfare dependency, alcohol abuse and violence needs to be broken so that we can go on to build sustainable, healthy communities.

Each of the interventions in the emergency response package is a critical component of the integrated response to the situation facing these Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.

The measures in this bill generally apply to the same prescribed areas covered by the measures in the principal bill. Banning prohibited pornographic material is one of the key issues.

This bill contains measures which ban the possession of pornographic material and advertisements in the prescribed areas.

The Little Children Are Sacred report revealed that the availability of pornography in Northern Territory communities is a factor contributing to child sexual abuse—being used to groom children for sex, and desensitizing children to violence and inappropriate sexual behaviour; grooming children so that they become so used to seeing this that they do not see it as abhorrent, dangerous or offensive against their person.

Put simply, this measure in the bill is intended to prevent children being exposed to pornography, by removing this material from homes and preventing it from entering communities. For the purposes of this bill, ‘pornographic material’ is described as ‘prohibited material’ and is defined as:

X18+ classified films; 

category 1 restricted and Category 2 restricted publications; 

films and publications that are refused classification; unclassified films and publications that, if classified, would be refused classification or X18+ or category 1 or category 2 restricted publications; and prohibited advertisements. 

The bill makes it an offence to possess or control prohibited pornographic material in the identified communities.

Unlike existing offences in the Northern Territory, the complete ban also applies to possessing prohibited material without the intention to copy or sell the material.

Make no mistake: this government is hell-bent on doing everything it can to protect these innocent children. Children should never be exposed to this sort of material as they are on a regular basis in some of these communities.

To make sure that the ban on possession will be effective, this bill will also ban delivering or sending prohibited pornographic material into these areas.

And this ban applies no matter where material is being sent from—from within the Northern Territory or from other parts of Australia, such as the ‘adult’ DVD industry based in the Australian Capital Territory.

We have to stop this material at its source, by preventing mail order companies sending material into a community, as well as residents or visitors sending or taking material into the communities.

Of course, Australia Post and other operators of postal and parcel services who inadvertently transport prohibited material into a prescribed area during the normal course of service will not be committing an offence. But those who use postal or parcel services to send prohibited material into a prescribed area will be subject to criminal penalties.

The Howard government also wants to ensure heavy penalties are imposed on those who are caught ‘trafficking’ pornography to at-risk communities.

This bill provides for heavier penalties for the supply of five or more items of prohibited material—the quantity is considered likely to indicate a commercial transaction rather than material solely for personal use.

These measures are about targeting the material and removing it, so police will have appropriate powers to seize material found in an identified community where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it is prohibited. This will mean material can be immediately removed from these communities.

Seized material will be returned, on application, if the responsible officer, or a magistrate, is satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is not prohibited material.

Repeal of certain provisions may be necessary, for example, if the Northern Territory government enacts legislation prohibiting possession of some or all of the material which is dealt with by the Commonwealth provisions.

Therefore, this bill provides for the minister, by legislative instrument, to repeal some or all of the new provisions, without the delay involved in enacting repealing legislation.

We hope and expect the new rules to do their job in helping to stabilise the communities by the end of the five-year intervention, as announced by the government.

Therefore, these rules will end after five years through a sunset clause in this bill.

Re-establishing law and order

A top priority of the emergency response is to re-establish law and order so people can feel safe from the threat of violence, perpetrators of sexual abuse can be apprehended and prosecuted, and the new bans on alcohol and pornography can be enforced.

We have increased police numbers, including through secondments from the Australian Federal Police and the states, which will enable police to live and work in communities, or visit regularly.

This bill ensures AFP members deployed in this role, and appointed as special constables of the Northern Territory police service, can exercise all the powers and functions of the local police service.

Further amendments will allow the Australian Crime Commission board to authorise the national intelligence task force into violence and child abuse in Australia’s Indigenous communities to have the commission’s full coercive powers, and capacity to access relevant information held by state agencies, to support the operations of the task force.

Retaining government ownership of facilities constructed on Aboriginal land (infrastructure)

This bill also provides for the Commonwealth and Northern Territory to have continuing ownership of buildings and infrastructure on Aboriginal land which are constructed or upgraded with government funding.

Each year, the Australian and Northern Territory governments provide millions of dollars for the construction and upgrade of buildings and infrastructure on Aboriginal land across the Northern Territory.

In the past, the Australian government has not usually retained ownership of the buildings and infrastructure, nor has it obtained an interest in the land on which they are constructed.

This has meant the government has been unable to protect its investment and has also led to very poor outcomes for whom these assets were meant to help.

For example, despite massive investment in public housing in the Northern Territory, today there are fewer houses in the Indigenous housing stock than there were five years ago—fewer public houses in the Territory today than there were five years ago.

The Howard government is no longer prepared to invest public money in buildings and infrastructure on private land unless it can have a continuing interest over them.

The bill ensures that, in the future, the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory will own buildings and infrastructure which are constructed or substantially upgraded with their funding.

Any construction or renovation will be undertaken with the consent of the relevant land council under the processes of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which require traditional owner consent.

Access to Aboriginal land

The permit system for people entering Aboriginal land will be retained but permits will no longer be needed to access common areas in the main townships and the road corridors, barge landings and airstrips connected with them.

The current permit system has not prevented child abuse, violence or drug and alcohol running. It has helped create closed communities which can, and do, hide problems from public scrutiny.

Improving access to these towns will promote economic activity and help link communities to the wider world.

It will also allow government services to be provided more readily—essential for the recovery of these communities.

The current permit system will continue to apply for the vast majority, or about 99.8 per cent, of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, including homelands. Sacred sites will continue to be protected.

In the townships and the road corridors where the permit system no longer applies, the Northern Territory government will be given the power to restrict access, temporarily, to protect the privacy of a cultural event or to protect public health and safety.

The government has been considering changing the system since it announced a review in September 2006 and the changes follow the release of a discussion paper in October 2006 and the receipt of almost 100 submissions.

Over 40 communities were visited during consultations following the release of the discussion paper. It was disturbing to hear from officials conducting the consultations that numerou