Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trish Draper (Makin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007. It is a sign that the government is responding to the issues that the previous speaker raised, even though we may see things slightly differently. The bill has been well described; there are clearly two areas of reform of classification procedures. As my colleague said, the amendments contained in this legislation are in conjunction with those in state and territory legislation.

The definition of ‘advertisement’ is important. It addresses the issue of new and evolving technology and the internet. There has been a lot of public consultation in response to industry concerns. The issue of piracy has arisen. I have already mentioned rapid advances in technology, which means there is quite a limited time frame within which to view and make classifications of film and other product.

The bill also enables a legislative instrument to set conditions on the advertising of unclassified films and computer games. An aspect that was interesting to me was a strong new advertising message to encourage consumers to check the classification. I must admit that it is only in recent years that I have become more aware of this matter, the whole debate around it and what is actually occurring. It is quite topical, having regard to the discussion of the Northern Territory Indigenous issue as well. It is important to check the classifications, and that those classifications endeavour to resonate with the people that we hope they might resonate with.

Industry based self-assessment is always the preferred method for me. I heard what my colleague said in the previous contribution. I am happy to have industry self-assessment, but I signal to the industry that if we need to firm this up, I would be more than happy to look at that as well.

The general appeals mechanism, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal able to review decisions by the director, seems sensible. Other safeguards include initial and annual training for individual assessors, random and complaints based auditing procedures, and allowing the director to call in advertisements.

I thank the Attorney-General for the work that has gone into this. In his second reading speech he stated:

The amendments contained in this bill will ensure that the national classification scheme continues to serve both industry and the public well by responding to the needs of the rapidly evolving world of entertainment media while still guaranteeing the reliability of classification information for consumers.

I turn to the explanatory memorandum. It states that the bill enables an advertising assessment scheme and a television series assessment scheme to be established under the 1995 legislation. Schedules 1 and 2 give the details that I have already described. With respect to the financial impact statement, the Commonwealth does not expect there to be any particular impact in that regard. In fact, it makes the point that the television series assessment scheme is intended to result in cost reductions to industry. That will no doubt be welcomed by industry.

Item 4, ‘exempt film or computer game’, makes a consequential amendment to the definition of an exempt film or computer game in order to reflect the change in policy that unclassified films and computer games can be advertised where it is done in accordance with the conditions to be set out in a new instrument. The effect of the amendment is that a film or computer game is not exempt from classification if it contains an advertisement for an unclassified film or computer game that has not been assessed or has been assessed as likely to be classified M or higher.

I do not think I can add anything more to the discussion of this legislation. I thank the Main Committee for its time.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mine too.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are sensitive to this issue.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No it is not.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mitchell has the call.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trish Draper (Makin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings on the bill be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.