Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Family First amendment (1) on sheet 5507:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 29), at the end of subsection 31(4), add:

“and in so doing, the scheme must:

             (a)    limit any advertising of an unclassified film or an unclassified computer game to the title and description of that film or game; and

             (b)    not include excerpts of the sound or vision from that unclassified film or unclassified computer game until that film or game has been classified”.

This amendment inserts a restriction that limits any advertising of an unclassified film or computer game to only the title and description of that film or game. This is a practical step. How can you show clips from and promote a film that has not been classified? If people are already watching a PG film in a theatre somewhere and all of a sudden you are promoting an unclassified film, I think that can expose people to films that probably are inappropriate for that age group. So the amendment that Family First are moving addresses the issue of promoting films to people who probably would not want those films promoted to them. It limits the advertising of an unclassified film or computer game to the title and description of that film or game.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to a number of the issues that Senator Fielding has raised, and particularly in terms of amendment (1), I would like to make the point that it would have been extremely useful to have had your amendments before the opening of debate today, to be able to deal with them in a sensible fashion. I understand that Minister Debus’s office has contacted your office, Senator Fielding, on many, many occasions since early May in order to provide you with information that could be of assistance. It would have been extremely useful to have had your amendments earlier in order to ensure that questions that you raise legitimately in the committee stage can be appropriately answered. However, having said that, let us go to the content of your amendment.

Your amendment essentially redefines the word ‘advertising’. It says that you cannot advertise any content of an unclassified film or computer game other than the title and a description of that film or game. If we allowed this amendment, there would no longer be advertising of the product. In allowing excerpts of the sound and vision, an advertisement actually provides parents and consumers with greater information on which to base their decision to view or purchase the product. By being able to provide more than a set of words that describe a film, therefore giving parents a bit of notion of what it is about—because if you see some excerpts from the film you will get as a parent bit of an idea of what the film is about—I think you actually provide parents with more information on which to make a judgement about whether they will take their child to the cinema or allow the purchase of particular computer game. Can I also reinforce with you that advertisements will be required to have a strong message to consumers to ‘check the classification’. This is clearly saying to consumers that the classification of this film has not yet occurred, as occurs now. So parents will be clearly aware of what is in a film prior to allowing their children to watch it or to purchase it.

You made the point, Senator Fielding, that you may take your child to a cinema to watch a PG film, and an advertisement for another film may appear that you find offensive. I understand that the regulation will say that a cinema which is going to carry an advertisement for another film can only show that advertisement if it is at the same classification level as or lower than that which applies to that showing. You cannot be there, having gone to see Bambi, and be confronted with a violent ad. I think that responds to the point you made in your contribution.

During the second reading debate, a number of speakers talked about the fact that this is ‘self-regulation’. It is not about self-regulation. Under this bill, the final classification decision will continue to remain with the Classification Board. Whilst there is a period of time where an advertisement for a film will be based on the industry advice, the final decision regarding any classification will remain with the Classification Board. I think that is an eminently sensible way to go forward. It not only acknowledges the concerns of industry but also protects children in particular and consumers more broadly regarding what they see on film, television or while playing a computer game. The government will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment. Once again, it would have been great to have had it a little earlier.

Question negatived.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 2, page 10 (line 2) to page 13 (line 3), to be opposed.

Family First oppose the industry having a lot more say in the classification process. I think that having the industry make a recommendation to the Classification Board allows it to have more of a say than it needs to. The industry has enough of a say, let alone allowing it to try to influence the Classification Board with recommendations on how things should be classified.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schedule 2 of the bill introduces a more streamlined process for classifying material. It does not allow industry to make classification decisions, as I have said before. Schedule 2 does nothing more than allow industry to make recommendations to the board. The purpose of this proposal is to reduce the regulatory burden on industry.

I would like to address some of the issues that Senator Fielding raised during his second reading contribution. I do not know if you watched the series Robin Hood. I certainly did—I thought it was terrific—but I have not seen it as a box set. The content of what is shown on television and what you purchase in a box set of the Robin Hood series, I am advised, may differ. That will explain why there are differences. It acknowledges that there are two different streams of approval and that the content does change, though not hugely. I think Maid Marian on Robin Hood was rather voluptuous, but she might have looked a bit more voluptuous, shall we say, on the box set. It is a shame she died; I was very sad about that part. This difference might explain why there will be a different classification for the box set than for the television series.

The other important reason why the government is moving this way in the classification of box sets is that a key characteristic of a television series is that episodes are generally fairly homogenous in impact, as the series as a whole is targeted to a particular consumer group and is consistent in its treatment of classifiable elements across long running times. If the Classification Board watched all of Robin Hood, it would take an enormous amount of time. I think you would agree that they would have a wonderful time doing it—and that is great—but it would take an enormous amount of time. This is a sensible amendment that says, ‘We will get advice from industry about where the level of classification should be.’ The board continue to hold the ultimate classification tool; it is still their classification. But, in terms of box sets of material that has already been on TV in Australia—this is not new material—I think this is a sensible amendment that will waste less time and money, to be quite frank. The ultimate outcome will be that the community will be protected into the future and be happy to buy a box set of whatever they want—including Robin Hood.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.