Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

This debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 is taking place during a time when it is possible to have divisions or move amendments. We are not in a non-controversial period of the session. So if fellow senators do have objections or suggestions for changing the legislation before us, they can do so, regardless of the level of interest to date or, indeed, even the number of people on the speakers list. I might add—for Senator Joyce—that I thought it was three as well, but it has just grown in the last few moments. At any given time in this place—and I put this on record—there are usually only three or four speakers on a piece of legislation, sometimes not even that. Given it is our last week here as Australian Democrats, I note that nearly every bill in this place sees a Democrat speaker to that legislation, regardless of whether it is controversial or not.

In this case, the government will be pleased to see that the Democrats are supporting the legislation before us. In many respects, it is a pretty mechanical sort of bill, for lack of a better description. I rise again for the penultimate contribution—or maybe the third to last time—as the Australian Democrats Attorney-General spokesperson to speak to this bill.

This bill implements a number of amendments to the National Classification Scheme, some directly and some via the development of separate legislative instruments. I acknowledge there has been, among some of us in this place, a concern about the increase in delegated legislation for some time. I suspect that might be something for those with concerns, particularly for the speaker before me, that disallowable instruments can be disallowed. If there is concern with delegated legislation that may flow from such legislation, there are opportunities in the Senate to tackle those issues.

Complimentary state and territory legislation currently prohibits the advertising of films and computer games before they are classified. However, exemptions can be granted by the Classification Board to allow for advertising prior to classification for public exhibition films. We have probably all seen this in practice when an advertisement for a major cinema release is accompanied by that familiar disclaimer stating: ‘This film has advertising approval. Check the classification closer to the release date.’ However, exemptions are not available for other films, including DVDs, videos, compilations of TV series, or computer games. In practice this means that new DVDs or games that are yet to be released in Australia cannot be advertised. This clearly creates an inequality between major cinema release films and other products.

Schedule 1 of the bill rectifies this inequality. It provides for a new legislative instrument that allows for the creation of a new advertising scheme for unclassified films and computer games. An industry self-assessment scheme will be created whereby trained and authorised assessors are able to make an assessment of the likely classification of a film or computer game for the purpose of advertising that film or computer game before it has been classified.

Oversight of decisions by authorised assessors will be provided by the Classification Board as a safeguard. Authorised assessors may be barred from using the scheme by the Director of the Classification Board if the scheme is being abused. In addition, unclassified films and computer games will only be advertised with classified films or computer games of the same or higher level—for example, trailers on DVDs, and trailers or demos on computer games, which means that likely PG films are only to be advertised with films classified with a PG or higher rating et cetera. I think—and the Democrats believe—this is an important safeguard to ensure that people are not inadvertently exposed to potentially offensive material. We take on board Senator Joyce’s concerns in that regard.

Schedule 2 of the bill will enable the establishment of a scheme for the classification of films that are episodes of a television series. A trained and authorised person will be able to provide a report and a recommendation to the Classification Board to assist them in their classification of a box set of episodes of a television series. The Classification Board will retain responsibility for classifying the film. So, again, the Classification Board essentially reigns supreme.

Schedule 2 is designed to streamline and reduce the cost to industry of the classification scheme as it relates to TV series. It will also introduce a new requirement that at least one of the episodes in a series box set has been broadcast in Australia in recognition of the fact that many series produced and broadcast overseas will never be broadcast in full in Australia. This will allow producers and distributors to obtain a classification while the series is being broadcast so that it can be released for sale during or at the end of the season.

The idea is that the cumbersome nature of the existing classification scheme will not prevent producers and distributors from advertising and selling their products, thereby preventing them from being beaten to the punch by internet downloads and illegal piracy activities. The Democrats understand that these reforms are generated by industry concerns that the classification scheme is cumbersome, costly and does not keep up with technological developments that allow virtually instant access to films and games when they are released. As such, we will support the amendments.

However, the Democrats recognise that there is a risk that a move towards greater industry self-regulation when it comes to classification could undermine the integrity of the classification scheme if important safeguards are not maintained. We think that today this bill strikes an appropriate balance between creating a more streamlined and user-friendly classification system and maintaining high standards for classification.

In relation to advertisements for unclassified films, the Director of the Classification Board can call in any advertisement that has been inappropriately assessed, and disciplinary action can be taken against assessors. In relation to TV series, the board will retain ultimate responsibility for classification but will be informed by industry assessments. However, given that the bill leaves a significant amount of detail to be provided via legislative instrument—to which I referred in my opening remarks—I think it is important that the parliament keeps a close eye on, and a close interest in, further developments in this area, including, if need be, by disallowing any regulations which are not up to scratch.

Just on that parting note, as I have said during my time in this place and over the years that I have watched the parliament, there has been an increase—I think, Acting Deputy President Watson you are smiling knowingly; I am not sure—in the amount of delegated legislation that comes here. That is all right provided there are some accountability provisions through the parliament—that is, you can disallow—but I think there is a very strong argument for some things, which are almost shunted off to a disallowance framework or delegated legislation, to be enshrined in legislation: in the specifics of bills with which we deal. But today the Democrats will be supporting the legislation before us.