Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006 amends three pieces of legislation—the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The bill integrates the Office of Film and Literature Classification into the Attorney-General’s Department and, in so doing, amends its functions to cover multimedia technological developments.

There is a clear argument for updating the law in order to properly classify multimedia content, such as the extra features that are now frequently included in the DVD release of movies and television programs. Things like out-takes, games, advertisements, behind-the-scenes specials and additional material left out of the original movie or television program for good reason also ought to be properly classified. The updated guidance offers better protection for families by providing comprehensive advice to parents on content. Labor supports this.

The integration of the Office of Film and Literature Classification into the Attorney-General’s Department provides greater control of its functions to the Attorney-General. The bill transfers from the board director to the Attorney-General the power to determine markings for each type of classification and the manner in which they are to be displayed. I ought to make the general point when we are having this kind of discussion that, however much we might deplore some of the content which shows up in the modern era, publications, computer games and video material evermore accessible via the internet cannot be hidden. The ideas they contain cannot be hidden and the only ultimately effective way to overcome offensive or destructive ideas is to present and espouse virtuous ideas, and this is what past censorship efforts have taught us. Former US President John F Kennedy said about America:

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

I think he was pretty close to the mark.

The explanatory memorandum tells us that the classification publications legislation amends three acts and that it has four schedules. Schedule 1 facilitates the integration of the Office of Film and Literature Classification into the Attorney-General’s Department; removes the director’s financial powers and responsibilities for the administration of the Office of Film and Literature Classification; replaces references to that agency in legislation with more appropriate references; and provides for Australian Public Service staff from the Attorney-General’s Department to support the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board in executing their statutory functions. So, rather than having the director appointing consultants, attorneys-general will be providing APS staff and the financial accounts will be kept by the Attorney-General’s Department, which will be assuming responsibility for the financial administration.

Schedule 2 makes amendments to reinforce the independence of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. It provides separate statutory powers to the convener of the review board to manage the administrative functions of the review board independently of the board. It confines the existing powers of the director to matters associated with the board and gives new powers to the convener for matters associated with the review board. These include obtaining copies of material to be reviewed, considering applications for the waiver of fees and issuing classification certificates. Consistent with ministerial responsibility, the bill also transfers to the minister administering the act, the Attorney-General, the power to determine fee waiver principles in consultation with state and territory censorship ministers. As part of that schedule, we will remove the anomaly whereby the Classification Review Board is now reliant on the Director of the Classification Board for some of its administrative functions. This schedule also remedies some technical errors.

Schedule 3 makes amendments to improve the operation of the national classification scheme and respond to a very rapidly changing technological environment for entertainment media. It provides that additions to already classified films of descriptions or translation, such as subtitling, captioning or navigation functions such as interactive menus, are not considered modifications necessitating reclassification.

The bill also sets up an additional content assessor scheme which will recommend to the board the classification and consumer advice for additional content which is released with an already classified or exempt film. Quality assurance processes are included in the scheme to ensure the ongoing integrity of the classification process. Of course, it is the case that we are getting these additions to already classified films in a changing technological environment, so the government takes the view—I think not unreasonably—that things like navigation functions should not be considered modifications which require reclassification and, where we have additional content being released with an already classified film, we will have this assessor scheme for the additional content. I think that is a reasonable modifying measure and there are safeguards which have been put in place to protect the integrity of the classification scheme as a whole.

The final schedule, schedule 4, makes a number of miscellaneous minor amendments to repeal expired or redundant provisions. The bill also transfers from the director of the board to the minister the power to determine markings to be displayed about classified material. That power is to be exercised by the minister in consultation with state and territory ministers. The bill will not have any financial impact, or it is not expected there will be any significant financial impact. It will not result in any change to the net asset position for the Commonwealth. It relates pretty much exclusively to changes to administrative processes. So the opposition does not regard this as a controversial piece of legislation and will not be opposing it.

See this speech in context