Australian Censorship News: October-December 2007

UPDATES: 26th December 2007
FACES OF DEATH 2: RC
FACES OF DEATH 3: RC
FACES OF DEATH 4: RC
KILLER DESIRE: RC
CLAUDIA: RC
TRIPLE ECSTASY: RC
SHOOT 'EM UP: R18+ Review Stopped 

UPDATES: 9th December 2007
The Seven Banned MUFF Titles.
60 Second Relief (2007) 
70K (2006) 
Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit (2007) 
The Farmer’s Daughter (1976) 
The Schoolgirls' Report (1970) 
Sex Wish (1976) 
Whore (2007)
New to Database: The Schoolgirls' Report 2
JASON COLT: MYSTERY OF THE SEXY DIAMONDS-EXTRAS: RC 
HOTTER THEN HELL 2: RC
GIRLS GONE WILD - MARDI GRAS INVASION: R18+ Censored.
SCAG (Censorship) Annual Report 2006-07

UPDATES: 26th November 2007
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK Modified.
BANNED FROM TV: RC Again.
Customs Confiscations.
ABC 2's GOOD GAME on Censorship.
DVD Censorship Round-Up.
Rating updates.
ALP Censorship Policy.
De-Anne Kelly out, John Murphy in.

UPDATES: 18th November 2007
Your Vote 2007.
www.ilovesex.org.au
Eros Parliamentary Information Guide.
NO BODY IS PERFECT: RC.
Two Melbourne Gay DVD Stores threatened by A-G.
THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1 - Cut.
RIVER PATROL: Cut
EVILUTION 3: Cut 
THE STUNTGIRL: Cut 
NICE FUCKING VIEW 2: Cut 
TAMED TEENS 2: RC
ASS TAKERS 4: RC 
TEENY AUFSTAND: RC 
X-RATED DISC 1: RC
YOUNG AND ANAL 05: RC

UPDATES: 11th November 2007
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK - RC.
Classification Review Board Vacancies.
Donald McDonald Speech 'Sense and Censorbility'.
SAW IV: R18+ dropped to MA15+.
30 DAYS OF NIGHT: R18+ dropped to MA15+.
SEA PATROL SERIES 1 Still Rated-M.
SLEUTH: MA15+ dropped to M.

UPDATES
26th December 2007

FACES OF DEATH 2: RC
FACES OF DEATH 3: RC
FACES OF DEATH 4: RC

The final month of the year has seen the censors ban three entries in the  FACES OF DEATH series.  The twenty-seven year ban on part one was finally lifted in March when it was passed with an R18+ (High Level Violence, Distressing Images and Themes) rating. No doubt encouraged by this, Umbrella Entertainment picked-up the next three parts with the intention of issuing a DVD box set in February 2008. Unfortunately, it doesn't look likely to happen following the banning of FACES OF DEATH 2, 3, and 4 in late December.

******

KILLER DESIRE: RC 
CLAUDIA: RC
TRIPLE ECSTASY: RC

Three more banned hardcore films to add to Calvista's tally for the year. 

CLAUDIA, a UK production was banned from Harmony Films was rated RC on December 10th. This was followed by  KILLER DESIRE on the 11th, and TRIPLE ECSTASY on the 13th.

******

SHOOT 'EM UP: R18+ Review Stopped 

This is an interesting one. On August 28th 2007 the Classification Board awarded a 35mm print of SHOOT 'EM UP an R18+ (High Level Violence) rating. Following this, a concerned fifteen year old (who we only know as JWD) applied to the Review Board to have the rating reviewed. Obviously the R18+ would have meant he would not have been able to view it in the cinema, though a ratings drop to MA15+ would have been okay. The Review Board met on September 26th 2007 to consider if JWD fitted the definition of a "person aggrieved by a decision of the Classification Board".  Ultimately JWD was unsuccessful, but he deserves our respect for getting it together and attempting a challenge. If more of us just wrote a letter of complaint (they've just banned FACES OF DEATH 2 to 4!) then maybe the conservative view point wouldn't always be so dominant.

So, JWD, if you are reading this. You have our appreciation for overcoming the apathy that most people feel when a censorship decision goes against them.

Complain loud, and complain often!

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
07/9113

Meeting: 26 September 2007
Members: The Hon Trevor Griffin, Deputy Convenor and Chairperson
Mrs Gillian Groom
Ms Ann Stark

Applicant: JWD

Business: To determine whether JWD is a person aggrieved by a decision of the Classification Board.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

JWD (the Applicant) has made an application for the review of a decision by the Classification Board to classify the film Shoot 'Em Up R18+ (restricted to persons 18 years and over). A preliminary issue requires resolution, namely, whether or not the Applicant is a person aggrieved by the decision of the Classification Board.

A Review Board panel of three persons considered the application on 26 September 2007 so far as the status of the Applicant was concerned and unanimously decided that the Applicant is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 42 of the Classification (Publications. Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act).

The relevant provisions of that section provide:

(1) Any of the following persons may apply to the Review Board for a review of a decision: ...
(d) a person aggrieved by the decision.

(2) ...

(3) Without limiting paragraph (1)( d), if the decision referred to in that paragraph is a restricted decision, the following persons or bodies are taken to be persons aggrieved by the decision:
(a) a person who has engaged in a series of activities relating to, or research into, the contentious aspects of the theme or subject matter of the publication, film or computer game concerned;
(b) ...

(4) However, a person or body is not aggrieved by a restricted decision because of
subsection (3) if the decision was made before:

(a) the person engaged in a series of activities relating to, or research into, the contentious aspects of the theme or subject matter of the publication, film or computer game concerned; or
(b) ...

The Applicant is aged 15 and has expressed a keen interest in film. In the course of making his application he has written to the Review Board on a number of occasions in support of his application. Those writings included the answers to questions ¹ asked of the Applicant prior to the Review Board considering the preliminary issue.

¹ Those questions were: 
(1) Have you made any films? 
(2) If so, have you had them screened? 
(3) Do you plan to make any films? 
(4) Have you written any critiques of films? 
(5) If so, have you had any such articles published?

In essence his argument is that:
1. He has a keen interest in film, particularly action films
2. He has been looking forward to seeing this 'exciting action' film Shoot 'Em Up since mid-2006
3. He has been reading reviews of the film through the months following mid-2006
4. He has watched trailers, read reviews, read the Classification Board's report and read about the film's content and he does not agree with its classification
5. From mid-March 2007 he has seen nearly every film in the cinemas and enjoys doing so,
and
6. As a result of the Classification Board's decision to classify the film R18+ he is now unable legally to view the film, as he is 15 years of age, but must wait approximately 25 months to do so.

The Applicant argues that for these reasons and on the basis of the information contained in his communications to the Review Board, to which the Review Board has had regard to the extent of their relevance, he is an aggrieved person.

'Aggrieved person' is not defined in the Act, but there have been a number of cases where the meaning of the phrase has been considered. Many of those relate to standing in Courts and Tribunals.

What is the scope of the phrase 'person aggrieved' by the decision? The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the ADJR Act) uses the formulation 'a person aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies'. The ADJR Act defines 'person aggrieved' as including a person whose interests are affected by the decision, conduct or failure to make a decision.

A wide interpretation has been given to the phrase 'person who is aggrieved' in the context of the ADJR Act. In Tooheys Ltd v Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (1981) 54 FLR 421, Justice Ellicott held that:

the words 'a person aggrieved' should not, in my view, be given a narrow construction. They should not, therefore be confined to persons who can establish that they have a legal interest at stake in the making of the decision.

Ellicott J went on to add:
This does not mean that any member of the public can seek an order of review. I am satisfied, however, that it at least covers a person who can show a grievance which will be suffered as a result of the decision complained of beyond that which he or she has as an
ordinary member of the public.

Much of the analysis by the Courts of 'person aggrieved' refers back to cases which consider the common law test of whether a person has a 'special interest' which gives them standing to seek remedies for a breach of the law.

In Ogle v Strickland (1987) 71 ALR 41, Justice Fisher decided that two priests had sufficient interest to challenge a decision of the Censorship Board made under the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations which approved the registration of a film called Je Vous Salue Marie (Hail Mary). Fisher J stated:

I am of opinion that the appellants do stand in a different position from other members of the community who profess the Christian faith. I attach significance to the fact that as priests and teachers their interest and their activities are not limited merely to professing the Christian faith. Their interest in my opinion extends beyond that of other members of the Christian community whose limited concern could be fairly described as only
'intellectual or emotional', which words were used by Gibbs C.J. at p.35 of the Onus case. The vocation and professional calling of the appellants being more than an intellectual or emotional concern requires greater weight to be given to their interest in the subject matter of the film and in the question whether it is blasphemous. They have, in the words of Stephen J., a 'closer proximity' to this subject matter than other members of the community.

There are other cases which are also relevant and not inconsistent with the above.

The Classification Review Board concluded that a person aggrieved must be a person with an interest in the decision of the Classification Board which is greater than that of an ordinary member of the public. The interest adversely affected must be more than merely an emotional or
intellectual interest.

While the Applicant submits that he has an interest in film, even a passion which places him in a different category from other citizens, the Review Board is not satisfied that he has an interest greater than an ordinary member of the public.

The Review Board also considered whether a 15 year old, a minor, could be an applicant and determined that, unlike, say, Court proceedings, there appears to be nothing to prevent a minor from making an application to the Review Board other than, in each case, being satisfied that that person has the necessary capacity to do so.

The Review Board further considered the application of paragraph 42(3)(a) to the Applicant in the light of his submissions and considered that he did not fall within its terms. 

Conclusion

In respect of this application the Review Board confirms that it unanimously decided that the Applicant did not fall within the category of an aggrieved person under paragraph 42(1)(d) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.

Therefore the application for review cannot be entertained by the Review Board.

Update December 26th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
9th December 2007

The Seven Banned MUFF Titles.

Okay, this happened over two months ago, so we know this is not exactly news. Unfortunately we're still trying to catch up after the two month break.  So, finally we've added the seven titles that the OFLC banned from being screened at this years Melbourne Underground Film Festival.

The films in question were:

SEX WISH had previously been banned in 1978, and again in 1979. Can you believe a distributor actually attempted to get this past the censors! A cut version of  THE SCHOOLGIRL REPORT was passed R18+ in 1973, but was banned in 1979. The graffiti documentary 70K was first banned in 2006. It's unclear if THE FARMER'S DAUGHTER had any previous form. The shorts WHORE and 60 SECOND RELIEF, and Tony Constock's Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit had never previously been rated.

Back in 2004 the OFLC demanded that The Toolbox Murders (1978),  Wife to be Sacrificed,  and Za Ginipiggu 1 and 2 all be pulled from MUFF.

******

New to Database: The Schoolgirls' Report 2

Whilst were on the subject of THE SCHOOLGIRL REPORT series we may as well add the second entry in the series to the database. The Schoolgirls' Report - Why Parents Lose Their Sleep played between 1973 and 1978 with an R18+ rating before it was banned in January 1979.

******

JASON COLT: MYSTERY OF THE SEXY DIAMONDS-EXTRAS: RC
HOTTER THEN HELL 2: RC

A couple more banned hardcore titles to add to 2007's ever expanding list.

Private's big-budget porn version of James Bond, JASON COLT: MYSTERY OF THE SEXY DIAMONDS - EXTRAS was Refused Classification in late November. Presumably this means only the DVD extras have been banned. As usual Calvista were the applicant.

Last week also saw Homesafe DVD's planned release of HOTTER THAN HELL 2 put on hold after it was rated RC.

******

GIRLS GONE WILD - MARDI GRAS INVASION: R18+ Censored

Now we try and avoid covering X18+ hardcore that is censored down to R18+. If an adult film is supposed to be hardcore, and is rated R18+ then it is cut, simple as that. However, we'll make an exception for GIRLS GONE WILD - MARDI GRAS INVASION, a title that we believe doesn't contain hardcore footage. Indeed the whole GIRLS GONE WILD series seems to be aimed squarely at the R18+ market for soft-core sex. This explains why Zeal Entertainment were not happy with the X18+ awarded to GIRLS GONE WILD - MARDI GRAS INVASION on October 4th. They went away and censored the DVD, and on December 3rd were awarded an R18+ (High level sexualised nudity, High level sexual activity) rating. So if the R18+ Australian release appears with the same cover tag line as the U.S (UNCENSORED! RAW! REAL UNCUT!), ask for your money back, because it is definitely not uncensored or uncut.

******

SCAG (Censorship) Annual Report 2006-07

The latest Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship) report is out now. Thankfully the proposal so that....

"..... matters portraying crime in a favorable light would be refused classification"

....has been dropped. This was specifically in relation to graffiti.

Annual Report to the Council of Australian Governments 

This update on key issues and outcomes should be submitted to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet annually, no later than 30 September. Updates should be no longer than two pages and should be submitted to csrs@pmc.gov.au. 

Name of ministerial council Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship) 

Dates of ministerial council meetings during the past financial year " 27 July 2006 " 13 April 2007 

Dates of officials' meetings during the past financial year 
" 26 September 2006 
" 1 March 2007 
" 7 June 2007 

Have minutes or resolutions of all ministerial council meetings within the past financial year been submitted to PM&C? 
Yes July 2006 submitted in May 2007 
Yes April 2007 submitted in August 2007 

Summary of key outcomes during the past financial year, including out-of-session outcomes 

" Ministers in relation to RC Guidelines and Matters of Crime: Graffiti expressed their views on a proposal to expand the current guidelines so that matters portraying crime in a favorable light would be refused classification, with a majority expressing opposition to the proposal. Ministers agreed to remove this item from the agenda. 

" Ministers in relation to amendments to Commonwealth Legislation-section 21 amendments for menus and captions agreed that officers develop a model provision for consequential amendments to State and Territory legislation to implement the amendments to the Commonwealth Classification Act. 

" Ministers, in relation to amendments to Commonwealth Legislation-section 21 amendments for additional content, noted that the Commonwealth Attorney General released a discussion paper on the issue, noted a report on consultations and agreed to amendments to the Commonwealth Classification Act to enable authorised industry assessors to make assessments and classification recommendations to the Classification Board about sale/hire films containing additional content where the feature has already been classified. 

" Ministers, in relation to amendments to Commonwealth Legislation-Determined Markings, agreed that the Commonwealth amend section 8 of their Act to confer responsibility for determining markings and the manner of display of the markings on the Commonwealth Minister after consultation with State and Territory Ministers. Ministers agreed, in principle, to amend State and Territory classification enforcement legislation to omit references to the Director in provisions which refer to the markings determined under section 8 and agreed, in principle, to amend State and Territory classification enforcement legislation requiring the display of a notice in the approved form in cinemas and at points of sale to refer to notices approved by the Minister. 

" Ministers, in relation to all legislative amendments further agreed to complementary amendments to State and Territory legislation, approved an approach for consequential amendments to State and Territory legislation, and agreed that States and Territories will use their best endeavours to introduce State and Territory legislation with a view to commencement before March 2008. 

" Ministers, in relation to Material that Urges or Advocates Acts of Terrorism, expressed their views on amending the Commonwealth Classification Act to require the Classification Board to refuse classification of material submitted by law enforcement authorities that contain depictions and descriptions that advocate terrorist acts. Ministers noted a proposal for material that advocates terrorist acts and requested officers to report back to Ministers on amendments to the code (and guidelines, if necessary) that could be made to ensure this material is adequately captured. Ministers agreed to release a discussion paper for consultation on 'Material that urges or Advocates Acts of Terrorism' that sets out a proposal to amend the national Classification Code and Classification guidelines to ensure that material that advocates terrorist acts is refused classification. 

" Ministers, in relation to Advertising Unclassified Films and Computer Games, Ministers: noted the summary of consultation on the discussion paper 'Review of Advertising of Unclassified Material' and that key industry stakeholders strongly supported the proposal. Ministers agreed in principle to proceed with the proposal including that the Commonwealth remove the advertising exemption scheme in their Act and the States and Territories remove the general prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games in classification enforcement legislation. Ministers agreed that, as part of the proposal, the ability to advertise unclassified films should be limited to films likely to be classified R18+ or lower. Ministers agreed to enact amendments to State and Territory legislation, and noted the Commonwealth amendments will commence no later than 12 months after passage. 

" Ministers, in relation to Availability of RC Material for Research, agreed that access to Refused Classification material for legitimate academic research and educational purposes may be appropriate in specified and limited circumstances and noted that current provisions in some State and Territory jurisdictions may be able to facilitate such access. Ministers requested officers to develop proposals for mechanisms to provide access to such material, including the persons, bodies or classes of persons who should be permitted to access it, the type of material, and conditions for doing so. 

" Ministers, in relation to Research into Community Standards, agreed to conduct survey research to assess whether, and the extent to which, classification decisions on films and computer games generally reflect community standards, and classification decisions on films appropriately apply the R18+ classification guidelines, particularly with respect to actual sex and the level of violence. Ministers noted that, on this occasion, the costs of the survey research will be met by the Australian Government, and requested that officers report the results of the research to Ministers. 

" Ministers, in relation to the Australian Centre for the Moving Image-Legislative Amendments, noted the difficulties faced by the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI) under the National Classification Scheme, noted that Victoria intends to amend their Act to better accommodate ACMI's needs, and noted that the Commonwealth has agreed in principle to amend their Act to enable the Director of the Classification Board to exercise powers to approve an organisation for the purpose of an exemption in relation to computer games. 

" Ministers, in relation to the Classification of Emerging and Contemporary Media, noted the contents of a paper prepared by officers and the Convergent Communications Research Group (CCRG) fourth quarterly report on new and emerging technologies. 

" Ministers noted an Additional Submission from the Australian Federation against Copyright Theft, and noted a report from the Australasian Police Ministers Council on its consideration of AFACT's submission on classification and copyright offences. 

" Ministers, in relation to the Music Ombudsman Annual Report, noted the report on the operation of the ARIA/AMRA Recorded Music Labelling Code of Practice (the Code) for the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006; and noted that the Commonwealth will continue to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the Code and report to Ministers. 

" Ministers noted a Community Liaison Scheme (CLS) Report for the period September 2006 to January 2007. 

" Ministers approved the SCAG (Censorship) Annual Report for 2005 - 2006. " Ministers noted the Progress Reports on matters not on the main or pre-approval agendas. 

Date of last review of council operations April 2006 
Current chair The chair is the host Minister. 
Meetings rotate through all the States and Territories. 

Current location of the secretariat Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department 

Please confirm contact details for the secretariat 

Title SCAG (Censorship) Secretariat 

Address Classification Policy Branch Robert Garran Offices National Circuit BARTON ACT 2601 

Telephone (02) 6250 5982 

Facsimile (02) 6273 3871 

E-mail SCAGCensorshipSecretariat@ag.gov.au

Web site http://www.ag.gov.au

Update December 9th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
26th November 2007

SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK Modified.

Activision have been hard at work since SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK was banned back in October. They have now produced a Classification Board friendly version of the game and been rewarded with an MA15+ rating.

******

BANNED FROM TV: RC Again.

Not quite so lucky were Zeal Entertainment. The censored print they prepared of BANNED FROM TV has seen it rated RC for a second time. 

******

Customs Confiscations

Unusually customs submitted two of their latest confiscations to the Classification Board for a second opinion. Stranger still, they were not banned.

First up was the After Hours Cinema DVD of William Hellfire's ORGASM TORTURE IN SATAN'S RAPE CLINIC. The title alone was obviously enough to draw it to the attention of customs. However it looks like this is one of those films that just can't live up to what it promises. On October 9th it was passed with an R18+ (High level themes, High level sex scenes) rating.

Next up was Rob Griffin's NAKED GIRLS SMOKING WEED - BEST OF 420 GIRLS. This is the book based on the 420girls.com website. Again customs were shown to be over cautious with the Classification Board passing it as Category 1 on November 6th.

******

ABC 2's GOOD GAME on Censorship.

ABC 2's GOOD NAME show had a nice 5 minute segment looking into the games rating system in Australia. It includes a visit to the Classification Board, and a chat with censor Greg Scott. 

How Games Are Rated. S2Ep8 13.11.2007

The Attorney-Generals of each state vote unanimously to set the policy for the way films and computer games are rated in Australia.

The Classification Board then enforces these decisions, which are set out in the National Classification Code. This code contains the ‘classifiable elements’ – which is what the Board uses to set a rating for a game.

Right now those elements are – Violence, Language, Themes, Drugs, Sex and Nudity and go from ‘G’ right through to ‘X18+’ - well that’s only for films. Games are only legislated up to ‘MA 15+’.

Jung meets Classifier Greg Scott, Journalist Jason Hill and Film Critic Marc Fennell, who give us their views on the current classification system.

******

DVD Censorship Round-Up 

With so many titles being released in extended versions we need someone to set us straight on what exactly we'll be getting when the film hits DVD. Rod William's from THE CHOPPING LIST is the man for the job.

A number of DVD releases in the last few months have generated interest in terms of being uncensored versions or 'bolder' versions. The extended versions of Con Air, Commando (Definitive Edition), Turistas, Hostel Part II and others appear to be longer versions with footage restored that was removed to obtain a US MPAA 'R' rating. Alexander: Revisited and Troy: Director's Cut both contain more grue than previous releases, although it's not confirmed yet whether the extra bloodshed was initially taken out to appease the MPAA. Some extended editions, such as Knocked Up, Fantastic 4 (not labelled as extended though shown to run for 126 mins), Gladiator and Crimson Tide, do not seem to offer uncensored content. 

The superb Black Hawk Down extended edition has an extra squirt of blood in the stadium hospital sequence, but I've not been able to determine yet whether Ridley Scott rescued this bit from the censor's scissors or not. Disappointingly, Spider-man 2.1 still has changes made for the UK release, namely the removable of a head-butt in one fight scene. Rosemary's Killer aka The Prowler (US) should be uncut at last compared to the VHS rental if the US master was used. Rumours of restored material in Hollow Man director's cut, Ghost Rider extended, The Hitcher (2007), and Hannibal Rising have yet to be investigated. The Passion of the Christ "Recut" has less gore than the theatrical version according to IMDB, so make sure you see the full-strength assembly. Finally, a site reader reports that earlier releases of Crocodile Dundee on DVD are longer than international cuts. If so, does this apply to the new 20th anniversary edition? Hmmm...

******

Rating Updates

It has been a while let us get on with the backlog of titles that have had revised ratings awarded by the Classification Board. You'll notice that in the vast majority of cases the consumer advice has been increased proving that the Board are indeed becoming more conservative.

First up is MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN (1979).  It was last confirmed as M (which it has held since 1979) in November 2004 with consumer advice of 'Adult themes, Low level coarse language'. Obviously pandering to the Religious Right, the September 2007 rating was raised to MA15+ with consumer advice of 'Strong coarse language, Satirical humour'. Since when did we have to be warned of satirical humour?

Stanley Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET (1987) has also changed from:

May 1999 - R18+ (Medium Level Violence) 
to
September 2007 - R18+ (High Level Violence)

It was released with an R18+ back at the time of its 1987 theatrical release after the distributor lost an appeal to the Review Board to have it dropped to an M-rating (this was pre-MA15+).

EVERYNIGHT... EVERYNIGHT (1994) has gone from:

March 1995 - MA15+ (High level violence, High level coarse language)
to
September 2007 - MA15+ (Strong violence and coarse language)

CASHBACK (2006) has gone from:

February 2007 - MA15+ (Brief strong nudity)
to
October 2007 - MA15+ (Brief strong nudity, Strong coarse language)

Possibly a deleted scene or some comments on a making of or commentary contributed to this.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) holds onto the R18+ that it has had since its original theatrical release in the 70's. It was last classified in September 1988 as R18+, consumer advice was still a year away at this point. October 2007 saw it reconfirmed as R18+, now with consumer advice of 'High Level Violence'.

KISS OR KILL (1997) has gone from:

May 1997 - MA15+ (Medium level violence, Adult themes, Medium level coarse language)
to
October 2007 - MA15+ (Strong violence, Themes and coarse language)

MY NAME IS JOE (1998) has gone from:

June 1999 - MA15+ (Adult themes, Medium level coarse language)
to
October 2007 - MA15+ (Strong themes, Strong coarse language)

FESTEN (1998) has gone from:

September 1999 - MA15+ (Adult themes, Medium level sex scene, Medium level coarse language)
to
November 2007 - MA15+ (Strong adult themes, Strong sex scenes and coarse language)

COP LAND (1997) has gone from:

August 1997 - MA15+ (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
to
November 2007 - MA15+ (Strong violence, Frequent coarse language)

3000 MILES TO GRACELAND (2001) has gone from:

April 2001 - R18+ (Medium level violence)
to
November 2007 - R18+ (High level violence)

The R18+ that THE TIN DRUM (1979) held during the its theatrical release has been dropped to MA15+ (Strong sex scenes, War themes and violence).

******

ALP Censorship Policy

Okay Rudd won. We'll have to wait and see how the ALP's approach to censorship differs from Coalition.  Remember we have ALP governments in all the States and not one of them has legalised X18+. The chances of an R18+ for games may be better, though probably not whilst the SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is still in power. Here is the ALP policy on filtering the internet that they took into the election.

Labor’s Plan for Cyber-safety 

Stephen Conroy 
Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate Shadow 
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 

ELECTION 2007

Mandatory ISP Filtering 

A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries. 

Labor’s ISP policy will prevent Australian children from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing child pornography and X-rated material. 

Labor will also ensure that the ACMA black list is more comprehensive. It will do so, for example, by liaising with international agencies such as Interpol, Europol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and ISPs to ensure that adequate online protection is provided to Australian children and families.

***

Here are the ALP's answers to a Religious Right group on the subject on censorship.

Labor intends to cap the terms of appointment of both the Classification Review Board and the Classification Board so that they do not become 'captured' by industry or desensitised to sex and violence. 
Labor will also introduce a clean feed policy for the Internet and anti-child pornography measures.

Labor understands the growing community concerns about the standard of films and television shows and their potential impacts on society, especially on children. Parents who take their children to a movie or watch a film on television want to know that the movie stays within certain boundaries and does not contain content that is inconsistent with how they want to bring up their kids.

Responsibility for classification of films rests with the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board.

It is important that the Board is truly representative of the Australian community and that Board members are representative of the wider Australian community.

Labor is concerned that instead of appointing genuine community representatives, the Liberal Party has made political appointments to the Classification Review Board with political appointees. Four out of the seven Board members have Liberal Party links.

Labor intends to cap the terms of appointment of both the Classification Review Board and the Classification Board so that they do not become 'captured' by industry or desensitised to sex and violence.

Labor will also introduce a clean feed policy for the Internet and anti-child pornography measures, and we believe these measures will go some way to addressing the ACL's concerns without need for a review.

******

De-Anne Kelly out, John Murphy in.

On the censorship front, De-Anne Kelly lost her seat of Dawson in Queensland with a swing of 13%. Kelly was instrumental in seeing the planned Non Violent Erotica rating scrapped in 2000, as well as the call to have BAISE-MOI reviewed in 2002.

One to watch will be the ALP member for Lowe, John Murphy. He always pushes a Religious Right agenda. These included in May 2005 asking questions in the House of Reps about the composition of the Classification Board, and the classification guidelines.

In August 2005 he questioned the rating awarded to 9 SONGS, and asked:

Are churches, young Australians, elderly Australians and other persons represented on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board

In March 2006 he asked the Attorney-General about the BLOODY MARY episode of SOUTH PARK.

Will he act to ensure that the episode of South Park is not broadcast and is refused classification on the grounds that such depictions are highly offensive to a significant proportion of Australians; if so, when; if not, why not.

Update November 26th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
18th November 2007

Your Vote 2007.

It's one week till the election. So what do the political parties think about censorship? A Religious Right lobby group sent a questioner to those seeking our vote. 

Here is what they asked about censorship.

There is community concern that society is becoming desensitised to sexually explicit and extremely violent material as film-makers test the boundaries of the interpretation of classification guidelines. Unfortunately, the current National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines allow too much discretion to the classifiers. Examples of this include allowing drug references and nudity in G-rated films if they are deemed to have "very mild" impact or allowing actual sex to be shown in R-rated films if it is deemed to have "artistic merit". Would your government direct a review of the Code and Guidelines, and the Classification Act, with the intent of limiting the discretion of the classifiers on such matters?

Here are some of the responses. Over all, if it looks like the Liberty and Democracy Party, and the Secular Party of Australia are the most anti-censorship. Note that the Green Party did not respond after questioning who was behind the lobby group. The policies on their website does however promise that:

The Australian Greens will introduce a nationally consistent approach to the regulated sale of X-rated material.

Liberty and Democracy Party on Censorship

The LDP opposes censorship. 
The LDP believes that it is the parents' responsibility to raise their children, not the government.

While the LDP accepts the idea that movies (and other art forms) will be classified by third parties to help consumers make more informed choices, we do not believe that the government should be involved in that process.

If the Christian lobby (or anybody else) disagrees with the current classifications, they are free to offer their own classifications and advertise their opinions. People can then choose whose advice they will follow.

Here is Queensland Senate candidate John Humphreys as quoted at ssonet.com.au. 

“Every other political party has an unhealthy interest in our sex lives. The LDP is committed to getting John Howard and Kevin Rudd out of our bedrooms,” 

“It is already legal to buy X-rated videos in Australia. However, in one of our more stupid laws, it is illegal to sell X-rated videos everywhere except the ACT.

“The current laws against prostitution are also absurd. The sex lives of Australians should be no business of the government.”

“We understand that pornography and prostitution go against the moral and religious beliefs of some Australians. However, we do not generally believe that it is appropriate to enforce religious views on other people,” he said.

“So long as nobody is hurt, people should be left relatively free to live their own lives.”

Secular Party of Australia on Censorship

While we may personally deplore the content of some R-rated films, we are opposed to censorship. 
However, in view of new technologies and other developments, a review may be beneficial.

The Secular Party holds that adults should be free to view and read what they choose. We would support restrictions on material that incites irresponsible misinformation, violence, hatred, or pornography involving any person under the age of consent, or under any form of compulsion. We do not support inappropriate material being available to minors.

Australian Democrats on Censorship

The Australian Democrats would support a review of the procedures for classification of film and literature and we have previously called for such a review.

Our long-standing policy on film and literature classification is that adults should be free to view and read what they choose, however we support restrictions on material that incites irresponsible misinformation, violence, hatred, or pornography involving or depicting any person under the age of consent, or under threat or compulsion without full responsible consent, or having participated for less than fair pay or working conditions. We do not support inappropriate material being available to minors.

ALP on Censorship

Labor intends to cap the terms of appointment of both the Classification Review Board and the Classification Board so that they do not become 'captured' by industry or desensitised to sex and violence. 
Labor will also introduce a clean feed policy for the Internet and anti-child pornography measures.

Labor understands the growing community concerns about the standard of films and television shows and their potential impacts on society, especially on children. Parents who take their children to a movie or watch a film on television want to know that the movie stays within certain boundaries and does not contain content that is inconsistent with how they want to bring up their kids.

Responsibility for classification of films rests with the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board.

It is important that the Board is truly representative of the Australian community and that Board members are representative of the wider Australian community.

Labor is concerned that instead of appointing genuine community representatives, the Liberal Party has made political appointments to the Classification Review Board with political appointees. Four out of the seven Board members have Liberal Party links.

Labor intends to cap the terms of appointment of both the Classification Review Board and the Classification Board so that they do not become 'captured' by industry or desensitised to sex and violence.

Labor will also introduce a clean feed policy for the Internet and anti-child pornography measures, and we believe these measures will go some way to addressing the ACL's concerns without need for a review.

Liberal National Coalition on Censorship

The Coalition will propose a review of the Classification Guidelines for Films and Computer Games to ensure that they deal appropriately with sex and violence. The Coalition will also place the issue of violence in firms and computer games on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. 
The Coalition will ensure the National Classification Scheme is not compromised by decision-makers becoming inured through continued exposure to explicit material.

The Coalition shares the community's concern about sexually explicit and violent material. In that context, the Attorney-General obtained agreement from state and territory Censorship Ministers to conduct research into, and assessment of, community standards including whether the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are making decisions in line with community standards.

At the first meeting of Censorship Ministers in 2008, the Attorney-General will propose a review of the Classification Guidelines for Films and Computer Games to ensure that they deal appropriately with sex and violence, and that they do not permit unacceptably violent material to be lawfully available.

The Coalition will place the issue of violence in films and computer games on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

The Coalition will also make sure that the National Classification Scheme is not compromised by decision-makers becoming inured through continued exposure to explicit material.

The National Classification Scheme is designed to provide consumers and parents with information about publications, films and computer games so they can make decisions about appropriate entertainment material for themselves and their children. The Scheme is based on the principle that adults should be able to make decisions on what they read, hear and see (with appropriate exceptions) while recognising that minors should be protected from exposure to offensive unsolicited material. The Coalition recognises the importance of getting the balance right.

Family First Party on Censorship

Family First is appalled that the Office of Film and Literature Classification can allow real sex in R-rated films, even though the general rule is it should not be allowed. 

Family First wants the National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines tightened so they mean what they say. 

Family First also wants to reform television standards. 

Family First is appalled that the Office of Film and Literature Classification can interpret guidelines broadly to effectively change what the guidelines say. For example, the general rule is that no real sex can be shown in an R-rated film, but the Classification Review Board of the OFLC has overturned that rule on a number of occasions.

Family First has used senate estimates committees to pursue concerns about the OFLC's interpretation of guidelines.

Family First is just as concerned about standards on television.

Family First wants to reform television standards so that sexualised music video clips cannot be shown during children's viewing time and offensive advertisements like the Nandos pole dancer commercial cannot be shown.

Everyday we see images in print and on television that tell girls and young women they should wear less and be sexually available. Children are not being allowed the innocent childhood that is their right.

Earlier this year Family First was quizzing government officials in a senate committee on television standards and was shocked to find no one in the Howard Government is responsible for regulating advertising. With some minor exceptions, the job of regulating advertising is left to the industry body, the Advertising Standards Bureau. So no-one is publicly accountable.

Family First calls on the Government to take responsibility for television advertising to ensure ads reflect community standards. Family First believes this should be the responsibility of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

One Nation (NSW Division) on Censorship

We should toughen film censorship.

Yes a One Nation government would direct a review of the Code and Guidelines, and the Classification Act, with the intent of limiting the discretion of the classifiers on such matters for films, television and printed material.

Christian Democratic Party on Censorship

Self regulation is not working: a new scheme is required. 
Serious breaches should result in loss of licence for the broadcaster. 
Standards for TV and radio should take account of the potential that exists to influence children.

All holders of television and radio licenses enjoy a privilege which carries responsibilities. As industry self regulation is not working, CDP supports the introduction of a new scheme with greater enforcement powers.

CDP believes that the standards for television and radio content should be rigorously enforced with significant penalties for breaches, including loss of licence, imposed by the appropriate authority.

CDP affirms also that standards for television and radio should take account of the potential that exists to influence children, and therefore reflect and support the values of Australian families.

The X-rated classification for films should be abolished and Commonwealth legislation introduced to prohibit the production and sale of these films in the ACT and the Northern Territory.

CDP considers that the classification scheme for films and computer games should be revised to ensure that there is a G classification which parents can completely rely on as indicating that the material is suitable for children of all ages.

CDP believes that the R18+ classification should exclude any depiction of actual sex or any implied depictions of sex with children. The highest classification for computer games should remain as MA15+.

******

www.ilovesex.org.au

Just added to the links page is ilovesex.org.au. Take some tips from the Religious Right lobby groups and get active in writing to your politicians.

take action.....
protect your rights
take a minute to tell the Politicians to stay out of your bedroom!
Help Combat a vicious campaign of lies and deceit

Christian and morals groups around Australia are currently sending thousands of emails to Members of Parliament stating that pornography is one of the worst problems facing the nation. By default, they are alleging that people like us who watch and enjoy X rated media are a danger to society and are morally bankrupt.

There is no shame in telling a politician to stay out of your bedroom. There is no reason to hide the fact that you like to watch adult DVDs when faced with a possible ban on them by politicians who only hear the religious viewpoint.

That’s why we have designed this web site. So if you value your rights to watch what you want in the privacy of your own home, send an email to a politician who matters in the debate.

Get involved and tell your premier the truth!

It's easy and won't take you long.

1. Choose your state by clicking on the map.

2. Fill in your details on the action form.

3. Send the standard letter, or write your own.

4. Hit the 'send it!' button.

5. Tell a friend or six :-)

******

Eros Parliamentary Information Guide

Just in time for the election the Eros Association have released their PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION GUIDE. Australia's crazy patchwork of censorship laws are compared to those overseas, party policies on adult material are examined, and community opinion discussed. Contact Eros for details on how to obtain a copy.

Sex industry backs Greens and Democrats The Age 15.11.07

EROS Foundation executive director Fiona Patten said four million videos were sold each year in Victoria and estimated that 25 per cent of Victorians were watching them.

Speaking at the launch of Sexpo at the Melbourne Exhibition Centre, Ms Patten said if state governments were serious about the issue they would ban the possession of X-rated films altogether.

"What other product is illegal to sell but legal to buy," she said.

"But we have national policies on X-rated films, we have a national classification code so why don't the states come into line with that national code?

"Nationally, both Labor and Liberal have fairly progressive policies on censorship - we have bipartisan support for the X classification at a federal level.

"In the senate we are supporting the Greens and the Democrats because they have policies to say they will work with state governments to get the federal scheme introduced."

Piracy of X-rated films is another bugbear with the industry, with Ms Patten estimating that up 70 per cent of DVDs sold have been pirated.

She said piracy could be wiped out overnight if adult stores were licensed and it was ensured that federally classified material was sold.

"It's getting politicians to say that word - sex - they get really nervous," she said.

"But we see it as a crackdown, controlling the industry.

******

NO BODY IS PERFECT: RC

The Swiss documentary NO BODY IS PERFECT has been banned by the Classification Board. This is the third non-hardcore title to be refused this year.

******

Two Melbourne Gay DVD Stores threatened by A-G

Back in September, two Melbourne stores that stock gay and lesbian DVD's were told by the Federal Attorney-General's Department to remove unclassified material. 

The first store to receive the letter was Outvideo.com.au. Located in St Kilda, they describe themselves as:

"The very best in Queer Alternative Film to rent"

They have launched a petition which we encourage you to sign. Here is what they have to say.

Save OUTvideo 
Created by OutVideo on Sep 06, 2007 
Category: Civil Rights 
Region: Australia 
Target: Attorney-General's Office 
Web site: www.outdvd.com.au

Description/History: 
FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAMPS DOWN ON GLBTI DVD’S

For six years, OUTvideo has specialised in selling and renting a diverse range of Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgendered and Intersex (GLBTI) titles otherwise unavailable in Australia.

Last week, we were contacted by the Federal Attorney-General’s Office in regard to our distributing material which has not been classified in Australia. We have been instructed by them to remove from sale and rental all unclassified material and we are currently in the process of complying with this order.

Unfortunately, many GLBTI titles never enjoy either a cinematic or DVD release in Australia. Moreover, films classified for theatrical release, must be reclassified for DVD release because DVDs include extra features. Classification is prohibitively expensive for titles for which we may only ever sell and/or rent a handful of copies. Unclassified material constitutes up to two thirds of OUTvideo’s range and customers will notice a drastic reduction in the titles we have available as a result of this action.

This is a substantial financial blow to OUTvideo which is owned and operated by members of our community and contributes generously to community organisations. As OUTvideo sells and rents online throughout Australia, it also represents a dramatic restriction on GLBTI Australians access to visual material representing their unique experience and point of view.

Responses to the news by customers has included the following: • David – “I was really looking forward to catching up on all the gay themed DVDs… that simply never made it to screen in oz or indeed Darwin” • Alex – “Where is the freedom of choice for adults over 21?” • Mark – “This is outrageous anti Australian business discrimination since all the titles are readily available from international websites as personal imports (but at higher cost including postage of course)”

OUTvideo is exploring options including an exemption from the relevant laws on the basis that GLBTI Australians constitute a minority sub-community similar to ethnic/cultural groups. Specialist distributors to these groups also supply unclassified material and import foreign language titles which, like many GLBTI titles, would never be viable local releases. We will keep our customers informed of our progress.

OUTvideo DOES NOT engage in parallel importing and will ALWAYS source local release versions of DVDs where they are available.

The owners and staff of OUTvideo wish to thank all of our customers for their loyalty and patience and assure them that we will continue to do our best to provide the broadest range possible.

***

Following the threat to Out Video,  Tim Wilson and Chris Berg  wrote this great article that appeared in The Age. They make some good points about the free availability of unclassified material in ethnic stores. Step into the average foreign VCD/DVD store and 100% of the stock will be unclassified. Not an OFLC rating in sight. However the AG's Department would not dream of writing to these stores. This is despite them stocking porn and titles that currently hold RC ratings, all, within much easier reach of children than anything stocked by Out Video.

We would disagree with the article when it says:

"It is unlikely that homophobia played a part in the Government's decision to enforce the law: it acted because it received a complaint."

If this was indeed the case then the AG would be busy writing to every Adult Store up and down the country that illegally stocks hardcore porn. Instead he is happy to pass it off as an enforcement matter for the States.

Film classification laws out of sync with the 21st century. The Age 01.10.07

RECENTLY a small St Kilda video store, Out Video, drew the attention of the federal Attorney-General's Department for selling and renting imported titles that have not been classified in Australia. Bureaucrats may be doing their job, but by acting against a small niche video shop, they have inadvertently exposed critical flaws in our film classification laws.

This highlights two major flaws in Australia's classification regime:

1. The regime has not adapted to a marketplace that allows media to be accessed through more than just domestic broadcasters and distributors. Consumers demand access to an increasingly wide selection of entertainment from overseas, and they can get it through the internet.

2. Our classification laws are not designed to accommodate small markets. Instead, the classification processes are optimised for large, general-release films. The system simply doesn't lend itself to small-run films, and the law unfairly harms businesses trying to service niche markets.

The targeting of Out Video by the A-G's Department should give it and the OFLC impetus to review the classification laws. With a vibrant and diverse international entertainment sector, these laws should not blanket-ban content. Such a policy makes a mockery of the liberal legal principle that all things should be legal unless there is a reason to make them illegal.

Many of the films these niche providers import have already been classified in the UK, US and Canada. So one possible solution is to recognise comparable classifications from other media-exporting countries.

But a preferable outcome would be the elimination of mandatory classification. If consumers demanded classification to guide their decisions, then distributors would have a commercial incentive to seek it.

Furthermore, classification need not be the preserve of government. Many private classification regimes exist to rate films on special criteria (the Christian community, for example, has pioneered many alternative rating systems). Under such a regime, films that failed to obtain any form of classification would be burdened with the trepidation of some consumers to buy or rent the product.

The removal from sale or rent of Out Video's titles will do nothing to reduce their availability. All the "offending" titles are available from online stores outside the country. Australians can order them online and watch them at home, avoiding the scrutiny of the censors.

Furthermore, internet-aided piracy is now extremely common. By denying consumers legal access to small-run films, mandatory classification provides additional incentives for consumers to download illegal copies.

The sale of unclassified material is hardly uncommon. If government bureaucrats want to clamp down on unclassified videos, they should take a walk down Victoria Street or Sydney Road. Both are hives of foreign-language video stores that stock unclassified foreign-language films. In all likelihood the Government wouldn't dare act in these cases: the electoral backlash would be considerable.

It is unlikely that homophobia played a part in the Government's decision to enforce the law: it acted because it received a complaint. But if homophobia was the cause of that complaint, it would merely demonstrate how the classification laws can be manipulated.

Current film classification laws undermine access to films for different sections of the community. And businesses that are trying to meet a diverse market demand for unique niche content should not be punished for doing so.

Tim Wilson and Chris Berg are research fellows at the Institute of Public Affairs.

***

Following the Out Video threat, a second Melbourne store, hares-hyenas.com.au, received a letter.

Another Video Store Faces Censorship. Sydney Star Observer 04.10.07

A second Melbourne store stocking imported gay and lesbian films has been ordered to empty its shelves after being targeted by the federal Attorney-General’s Department.

Rowland Thomson, owner of gay bookshop Hares and Hyenas, received a letter from the department ordering him to remove 10 DVD titles, including television soaps and critically acclaimed documentaries.

“They got the titles from the website,” Thomson said. “Things like Boy Meets Boy; Noah’s Arc; and The Aggressives, a documentary about butch New York lesbians.”

Also on the list was the 1997 film Bent, about the suffering of gay men in Nazi concentration camps, which has also been performed as a stage play in Australia for the last 20 years.

“Could you imagine if books had to be presented for classification? It’s a class thing; film being a more popular medium. We can sell the French Rugby calendar, but we can’t sell the Making Of DVD,” he said.

“This is a censorship due to minority interests.”

The cost to classify a three-hour film was quoted at $2,500, and came under attack in The Age earlier this week for unfairly hurting minority groups.

A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the department was simply enforcing the law.

******

THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1 - Cut

The DVD titled THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1 has finally been passed with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd had it banned back in July, but have now censored it to an acceptable level for the Classification Board.

******

RIVER PATROL: Cut
EVILUTION 3: Cut
THE STUNTGIRL: Cut
NICE FUCKING VIEW 2: Cut
TAMED TEENS 2: RC

As usual the Classification Board have been keeping the editors at Calvista busy.

Over a year since it was banned, Calvista have finally had Bruce Cam's RIVER PATROL passed.  This gay hardcore DVD was Refused Classification in June 2006, a censored version was finally passed on in September.

Also now passed with X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings are censored versions of THE STUNTGIRL, NICE FUCKING VIEW 2, and EVILUTION 3.

At the moment TAMED TEENS 2 remains banned.

******

ASS TAKERS 4: RC
TEENY AUFSTAND: RC
X-RATED DISC 1: RC
YOUNG AND ANAL 05: RC

October 10th proved to be a dark day for Metro Interactive Australasia with ASS TAKERS 4, TEENY AUFSTAND, and  X-RATED DISC 1 all being banned by the Classification Board. None have yet been re-submitted.

Joining them is YOUNG AND ANAL 05 which was banned last week.

Update November 18th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES 
11th November 2007

SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK - RC

RC is back! We have two months of censorship news to catch up with so we best make a start.

Probably the biggest story was the banning of SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK. This makes it the second game to be Refused Classification in 2007.

******

Classification Review Board Vacancies.

Ever dreamt of having a say in classification decisions? Now is your chance, you have until November 19th to get your application in to join the Classification Review Board. Read on for some examples of the work that they carry out.

Classification Review Board
Attorney General's Department
Vacancies - Classification Review Board 

Applications are sought from persons interested in appointment as a Member of the Classification Review Board. The Classification Review Board reviews, upon application, decisions made by the Classification Board. The Classification Board is responsible for classifying films, certain publications and computer games on behalf of the Australian Government and State and Territory governments. The Classification Review Board operates in an environment that is both sensitive and occasionally high profile.

The Classification Review Board operates as a team of people broadly representative of the opinions of ordinary members of the community. As a small team they articulate their views and appreciate the views of others. The Classification Review Board is not intended to be a team of classification experts.

Member – Classification Review Board (Part Time) ($643 per meeting day)

Duties: Members are required to:

review classification decisions made by the Classification Board on the classification and consumer advice for films, publications and computer games, and apply formal classification guidelines and other legislative requirements. Requirements: Members must meet the following selection criteria:

The ability to interpret relevant legislation and guidelines, or a demonstrated capacity to develop such an ability, in applying the standards generally accepted by reasonable adults in the public interest (this requirement does not mean that formal legal qualifications are an essential criteria). Demonstrated involvement in the community and the ability to reflect broad community standards. The ability to apply reason, commonsense and sensitivity when assessing a wide variety of material, including material across the full spectrum of classifiable material. Demonstrated ability to work as part of a diverse team. Conditions: The Classification Review Board meets in Sydney, as required, to review decisions. Applications from people living interstate or in regional areas are encouraged. The workload of the Classification Review Board varies, but, as an illustration, in the 2006 - 2007 financial year the Classification Review Board convened on 12 separate days.

Appointments are usually for a period of three years. Remuneration and allowances for members of the Classification Review Board are set by the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2007/10. Remuneration of $643 per meeting day is payable. Travel expenses to and from Sydney will be met.

Applications: Further information about the position and information on how to apply can be obtained from the ‘Information for Applicants’ document in the downloads box . Please read through the ‘Information for Applicants’ package before submitting an application.

Queries about the position may be directed to Amanda Davies on (02) 6250 5545 or e-mailed to: classificationappointments@ag.gov.au

Completed applications should be sent to:

Classification Appointments Attorney-General’s Department Robert Garran Offices BARTON ACT 2600

Or e-mailed to: classificationappointments@ag.gov.au

Applications close on 19 November 2007

******

Donald McDonald Speech 'Sense and Censorbility'

On September 26th 2007 , the Director of the Classification Board, Donald McDonald gave a speech titled 'Sense and Censorbility' at Currency House's Arts and Public Life breakfast in Sydney. The full text of the speech can be found at classification.gov.au. Here is the conclusion of his speech.

In my view the Australian classification scheme serves an important function in providing information to consumers, particularly parents, to enable them to make informed choices about entertainment material. 

• Australia is arguably an open and broad-minded place – and this is reflected in a scheme that focuses on classification rather than strict censorship. 

• The breadth of the Boards’ task is to balance the requirements that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want, that minors should be protected from exposure to harmful material and that everyone should be protected from unsolicited material they find offensive. 

• While sometimes difficult, every decision involves balancing these competing requirements along with the rights of artists to express themselves freely. It is also one of the points where commercial imperatives and public policy intersect. 

• I also believe that the nature of the classification scheme itself and the principles it embodies, recognises the importance of artistic and creative expression and legitimate interests of the Arts community as demonstrated by: 

- the Act’s provision that artistic merit must be taken into account when making classification decisions; and 

- enabling the screening of potentially controversial, high impact material that may not otherwise be seen in Australia, under the Film Festivals Exemption scheme. 

• It is a given that the Arts and entertainment industries fulfil a significant role in society – to amuse, move, shock, provoke, reflect, interpret, explain, inform, expose, comment, judge, critique and represent the world we inhabit. They also have the responsibility to be occasionally inspiring, uplifting and simply beautiful. 

The Arts (broadly speaking) are by nature a vehicle for agitation, pushing boundaries, questioning conventions and raising controversial issues. 

• Under our system, as it exists today, there is scope for artistic freedom due to the very broad range of content that is permissible across the spectrum of classifications. 

• It is for these reasons that, even in my current role, I continue to consider myself an advocate of the Arts. 

• It is important for the Board to continuously seek an appropriate balance in terms of classification decisions and community standards. 

• Properly managing this nexus gives certainty to producers and distributors when submitting product, increases the confidence of the community in the scheme and classification decisions and ensures the integrity of the underlying principle that adults should hear, see and read what they choose. 

• Apart from being practically impossible to accommodate the entire spectrum of individuals’ sensibilities, to attempt to do so would amount to a system of censorship rather than classification. 

• It is also not the role of the Board to prevent entertainment material from exploring the spectrum of human behaviour and experience. 

• The very small number of decisions annually which attract controversy (comparative to the large number of decisions made by the Board) indicates that we may be getting the balance right between sense and censorbility. Indeed the modern day equivalents of Geoffrey Dutton and Max Harris could not reasonably speak of a censorship crisis in Australia today.

***

Dean Bertram Opinion of Donald McDonald's Speech

Here is Dean Bertram, the co-director of 'A Night of Horror Film Festival', giving his response to Donald McDonald's speech.

Fundamentally for your own good. The Australian 05.10.07

He boldly claimed: "The board does not censor material at all; it must be classified in the form in which it has been submitted. Applying relevant legislation and guidelines, the board simply decides the classifications to give films, computer games and certain publications. It does not edit material or recommend modifications to publishers or filmmakers."

McDonald's disclaimer isn't a lie exactly; it just doesn't give us the full picture. As with many of the films that have passed before the Classification Board's fastidious gaze, the nasty bits have been cut out: Australia's classification system has been imposing self-censorship on the distributors of films, magazines, video games and even books for decades.

The process is simple, if underhanded. Film distributors and publishers know that if they submit something to the board that is judged to contravene the outdated legislation and ratings guidelines of which McDonald speaks, this material will be refused classification. Anything slapped with an RC rating cannot be legally distributed in Australia. In other words, it is banned.

Therefore, before seeking classification, film distributors and publishers are essentially forced to edit risque materials accordingly, removing those scenes, images, or words that would otherwise incur the dreaded RC.

Traditionally, horror films and materials depicting consenting adults in the sexual act have drawn most of the censorial fire. Such works, if not having been adequately sanitised before reaching the government censor's desk or screen, have often been flat-out prohibited. Of course, the Classification Board has also shot down several critically acclaimed films that deal with adult themes. Readers can probably remember the controversies surrounding the banning of Salo, Romance and Ken Park.

So we shouldn't slip into complacency when McDonald assures us in reasonable-sounding tones that: "Australia's classification scheme is based on the principle that adults should be free to choose what they read, hear and see with some limited exceptions, such as child pornography, gratuitous or exploitative depictions of sexual violence, cruelty or real violence and detailed instructions in matters of crime or violence."

Just as well we have the Classification Board to protect community values, that wonderfully amorphous concept that censors bandy about to justify their vigilance. Otherwise we might all be led down the path of wantonness. (Not surprisingly, McDonald referred to "community standards" and "community sensibilities" several times in his recent speech.)

******

SAW IV: R18+ dropped to MA15+

Hoyts Distribution have succeeded in their appeal to have the R18+ (High Level Violence) rating of SAW IV dropped to MA15+. This brings it in line with the other three entries in the series which were all awarded MA15+ ratings, with different consumer warnings.

SAW - High level violence
SAW 2 - Strong violence, Blood and gore, Coarse language
SAW 3 - Strong horror violence, Blood and gore, Strong coarse language
SAW 4 - Strong horror violence, Graphic autopsy scene 

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
5 October 2007 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film Saw IV 

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film Saw IV. 

Saw IV was classified R 18+ with the consumer advice ‘High level violence’ by the Classification Board on 28 September 2007. 

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 10 October 2007 to consider the application. 

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the Classification website once the review has been finalised. 

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

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
10 October 2007 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Saw IV classified MA 15+ upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a 2 to 1 majority decision, that the film, Saw IV is classified MA 15+ with the consumer advice, “Strong horror violence, Graphic autopsy scene”. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Saw IV warrants an MA 15+ classification because, given the horror genre, the impact of the violence is no more than strong. 

”The scene with the strongest impact is that of an autopsy, which is the opening scene of the film – whilst graphic and prolonged, it is not such that it requires legal restriction to adults,” said Classification Review Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley. “The scenes of violence, whilst strong, are not so intense that they warrant an R 18+ classification.” 

MA 15+ is a restricted classification. Films classified MA 15+ are not suitable for persons under 15 years of age. Persons aged under 15 years must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian in order to gain entry to the film.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Hoyts Distribution, to review the R 18+ classification of Saw IV made by the Classification Board on 28 September 2007. 

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

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

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

******

30 DAYS OF NIGHT: R18+ dropped to MA15+

Icon Film Distribution have also succeeded in their appeal.  The R18+ (Horror violence, Blood and gore) awarded to 30 DAYS OF NIGHT has been dropped to MA15+ (Strong horror violence, Blood and gore).

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
9 October 2007 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film 30 Days of Night 

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film 30 Days of Night. 

30 Days of Night was classified R 18+ with the consumer advice ‘Horror violence, Blood and gore’ by the Classification Board on 5 October 2007. T

he Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 17 October 2007 to consider the application. 

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the Classification website once the review has been finalised. 

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

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
17 October 2007 
MEDIA RELEASE 

30 Days of Night classified MA 15+ upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film 30 Days of Night is classified MA 15+ with the consumer advice, ‘Strong horror violence, Blood and gore’. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, 30 Days of Night warrants an MA 15+ classification because the impact of the horror violence set in a vampire story was no higher than strong. 

“Most of the violence was fantastical in nature and justified by the context of the narrative and horror genre,” said Classification Review Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley. 

“However, the Review Board provides the consumer advice of ‘Strong horror violence, Blood and gore’ so that parents are aware that this film is unsuitable for children under fifteen.” 

MA 15+ is a restricted classification. Films classified MA 15+ are not suitable for persons under 15 years of age. Persons aged under 15 years must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian in order to gain entry to the film.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Icon Film Distribution, to review the R 18+ classification of 30 Days of Night made by the Classification Board on 5 October 2007. 

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

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

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

******

SEA PATROL SERIES 1 Still Rated-M

Roadshow Entertainment have failed in their attempt to have SEA PATROL SERIES 1 dropped from M to PG. Instead the Review Board changed the consumer advice from

Moderate themes, Moderate violence

to

 Action themes, Infrequent moderate violence

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
20 September 2007 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the DVD Sea Patrol Series 1 

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the DVD, Sea Patrol Series 1. 

Sea Patrol Series 1 was classified M with the consumer advice, “Moderate themes, Moderate violence”, by the Classification Board on 23 August 2007.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 26 September 2007 to consider the application. 

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the Classification website once the review has been finalised. 

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

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
26 September 2007 

23-33 MARY STREET SURRY HILLS, NSW 

MEMBERS: Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor) The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor) Ms Kathryn Smith 

APPLICANT: Roadshow Entertainment represented by: Mr John Dickie, Consultant Ms Leanne Emerson, Operations Manager, and Mr Richard Lyle, Chief Classification Officer, Channel 9 

INTERESTED PARTIES: None 

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Sea Patrol Series 1 M, with the consumer advice ‘Moderate themes, Moderate violence’. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified Sea Patrol Series 1 M, with the consumer advice ‘Action themes, Infrequent moderate violence’. 

2. Legislative provisions 

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. 

Relevantly, the Code in paragraph 5 of the Films table provides that: 

Films (except RC films, X18+ films, R18+ films and MA15+ films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 are to be classified M. The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.  

Section 11 of the Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and 

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and 

(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and 

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published. Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines), determined under s 12 of the Act: 

• the importance of context 

• the assessment of impact, and 

• the six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity. 

3. Procedure 

Three members of the Review Board met on 26 September 2007 in response to the receipt of an application from Roadshow Entertainment (the applicant) on 13 September 2007. 

Each member of the Review Board panel viewed the film separately in the days preceding this meeting. 

The applicant made a written submission. The Review Board also received oral submissions from the following persons on behalf of the applicant: 

.. Mr John Dickie, Consultant .. 

Ms Leanne Emerson, Operations Manager, Roadshow Entertainment, and 

.. Mr Richard Lyle, Chief Classification Officer, Channel 9. 

The Review Board then considered the matter. 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account 

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following: 

(i) Roadshow Entertainment’s application for review 

(ii) Roadshow Entertainment’s written and oral submissions 

(iii) The film Sea Patrol Series 1 

(iv) The Classification Board’s report, and 

(v) The relevant provisions of the Act, the Code and the Guidelines. 

5. Synopsis 

This film consists of 13 episodes of the Australian television series, Sea Patrol, dealing with the often risky and sometimes dangerous missions of the Royal Australian Navy Patrol Boat Service. 

6. Findings on material questions of fact 

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance under the classifiable elements of themes and violence. There were no notable aspects under the elements of sex, drug use, nudity or coarse language. 

(a) Themes – included matters of serious medical emergencies, death and dead bodies, attempted suicide, attempted murder, dangerous smugglers, a terrorist threat, hostage taking, children in danger. In a number of episodes the themes are merged with the scenes under violence. 

Specifically the following scenes were noted by the Review Board as having moderate impact:

Episode 1: At approximately 20 minutes an emergency operation is performed on a woman who has been found on a beach, paralysed and having difficulty breathing. Although not a qualified doctor, Swain has to perform an emergency tracheotomy. He is clearly nervous about doing this and instructions are relayed over a radio device. The woman is clearly distressed as the camera focuses on her face showing her eyes rolling in fear. One seaman gently covers her eyes with his hand and the female officer holds her hand, as Swain lays a scalpel against her neck. The incision is implied off screen but blood is shown on the scalpel. A tube, being part of a pistol, protrudes from her neck, implying it has been inserted into the incision to allow her to breathe. 

The woman is taken back to the ship. There are close-up and over-head views of her bandaged neck with the tube protruding and her scared face. At approximately 33 minutes the woman stops breathing and is given resuscitation and CPR a number of times but dies. The female officer cries. It is the first time she has seen a dead person. 

Episode 3: A rope is pulled in over the side of a boat revealing, as the surface of the sea is broken, that it is tied to the leg of a dead man. 

Episode 4: Two crew members are stung by the deadly Irukandji jelly fish. At approximately 9 minutes a seaman is seen convulsing and then collapsing. He survives, but the other, who has been expected to recover, dies at approximately 34 minutes. There is a close up view of his eyes open after he has stopped breathing. The crew is shocked by this unexpected death.

Episode 10: A father has absconded with his two children in an unseaworthy boat. He is divorced from their mother who intends to take them with her when she remarries and leaves Australia to live in America. He is distressed and feels a failure. He stands outside the guard railings of HMAS Hammersley and as crew members are trying to talk to him he jumps off the ship and swims away from it. His children are not  present. He is rescued but is depressed and says he wants to be dead. On arrival in harbour he is taken away by two men in a black van and his children run to reunite with their mother. 

Episode 12: On a computer screen, a threat to cause mass poisoning to a number of Australian tourists is viewed. Photos of people, varying in age (children and adults) and including families, are shown with a voice-over stating that within 24 hours these people will be found dead. The HMAS Hammersley searches for an answer as time runs out. 

(b) Violence – included use of weapons (guns, machete) against persons, threat of violence with guns, explosions, hostage taking, attempted murder.

Specifically the following scenes were noted by the Review Board as having moderate impact: 

Episode 5: At approximately 26 minutes a foreign illegal fisherman holds a machete to his neck while looking at a photo of his children and showing distress as he speaks in a foreign language which the crew watching do not understand, until one of the crew translates that he is scared his boss will kill him if he leaves the boat. 

Episode 7: At approximately 39 minutes a woman, visibly upset, points a gun at the neck of a crew member. A close up of the gun against his neck is shown. 

Episode 8: At approximately 35 minutes a soldier is preparing to detonate an unexploded sea mine on the beach. The area is cordoned off and the beach cleared, but a young boy runs towards his ‘cubby’ near the mine. The soldier cannot hear the alarm of one of the Navy officers because his radio is turned off in preparation for the detonation. This female officer is seen running in slow motion towards him while on the other side of the cordon a sailor is running towards the boy yelling at him. The boy ignores the warning and runs into his ‘cubby’ which is next to the sea mine which is about to be detonated. The sailor is seen following the boy into the cubby and then running out with him in his arms as the cubby goes up in smoke following the explosion. The officer runs over to the sailor and boy who are lying unmoving on the sand. They prove to be okay as the navy team surrounds them with concern. 

Episode 10: At approximately 16 minutes a man is found in crocodile-infested mangroves, unconscious, with a bloody leg. A crew member states he has been mauled by a croc, and another crew member suspects he has been left to die intentionally. 

At approximately 20 minutes crew members are searching for a distressed father and his two children. The crew members run with guns as the father is seen running with his children in the muddy crocodile-infested mangrove. The father turns as they yell at him. He points a rifle at the crew members who have automatic rifles. He threatens them with the rifle . . . that he is not afraid to use it. The children stand behind their father and are not seen clearly. As the crew member asks him to give up his gun the other crew member fires his gun. They turn to see a crocodile’s head in the water. The father looks very shocked and distressed, and the children run to the safety of the crew members. 

Episode 11: At approximately 20 minutes a man points a gun at a crew member and another man points a gun at him from the other side. The crew member is taken hostage and is forced to join the men in a Zodiac which leaves the ship. A crew member is implicitly shot as they leave the ship, to prove they are not bluffing about killing the hostage. 

At approximately 27 – 29 minutes a gun is pointed at the head of the crew member. At approximately 31 minutes the crew member is tied to a pole in the hold of a sinking boat. Water is pouring in from above. He begs the man, who he had befriended, to tie him loosely but he seemingly does not and leaves. There is a close up of his hands struggling to get free and his distressed face. He has flashbacks to his time with his pregnant wife. At approximately 32 minutes the water is up to his chin and he is spitting it out – again a close up of his restrained hands under water. The water is up to his mouth and he has an image of his wife beckoning him into the water. The water is over his head . . . he appears unconscious . . . a close-up of his hands shows them to be still. He is rescued as the water is nearly to the roof. 

Episode 12: At approximately 29 minutes a man holds a woman as he points a gun at the captain and Executive Officer Lieutenant, and then pushes the gun into the side of the female hostage, stating “not bluffing, I’ll kill her.” The two men grapple with the gun and each other. At approximately 30 minutes there is the sound of a gun shot and we see the female officer drop to the floor. As the two men continue to struggle there is the sound of a gun shot and the hostage taker slumps to the floor, dead. The female officer is seen to have blood on her arm but she tells them it is just a graze and looks brave.

7 Reasons for the decision