Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The system of classification of content in this country has allowed us to safely enjoy family movies or computer games knowing that the images and themes are age appropriate. As content creation and distribution has evolved, as have the times; and as the ways that we consume media have rapidly expanded, our classification systems must evolve along with them. So it is good to see the continuation of the legislation by the new government that builds on the work of the coalition government before it.

The sheer volume of content now at our fingertips requires us to be more streamlined and agile when it comes to classification, whilst simultaneously ensuring that quality controls and safeguards are actively in place. The Stevens review, released in 2020, outlines a number of sensible recommendations to deal with this, and it is pleasing to see that this bill starts the process of enacting some of those less contentious recommendations swiftly. These include the high cost of processes to use the board, especially given the volume of content now requiring classification; time frames to use the board, which are too long to be compatible with current media practices; and lack of compliance with existing legislation among some content providers, including some video-on-demand providers and online game storefronts, partly as a result of the high cost and long time frames of the existing classification practices.

The continuation of expecting the Classification Board, a single governing body, to solely carry out the load of classification approvals is increasingly unrealistic, not only from a timing perspective but also from a cost perspective. I acknowledge that this bill makes steps to allow for that. Allowing self-classification by accredited individuals trained by the board—and I emphasise 'accredited'—will provide considerable relief in the bottleneck that we currently see. I appreciate the outlined safeguards that have been created in this bill in relation to self-classification, including ensuring that accredited persons are of fit and proper character and have carried out the relevant training. Accredited persons are not to be permitted to classify films likely to be rated X, 18+, or RC. The person's accreditation may be revoked or suspended on a range of character or performance grounds, and the board may revoke the classification set by an accredited person either on its own initiative or on the request of the minister or secretary. In that event the board must then classify the film or computer game.

Given the multitude of ways in which we view the same piece of content, the Stevens review highlighted that, under the existing arrangements, classification ratings can not be carried over between broadcast TV and other platforms such as video-on-demand, thus needing to be classified twice. This duplication was not only costly but also unnecessarily laborious, adding to the board's caseload with no justifiable benefit. With that in mind, this bill removes this barrier and applies a 'classify once' principle for broadcast content. I also note that the explanatory memorandum states that cost-recovery arrangements for industry self-classification may be considered in a future budget process. While fees may be applied for accreditation and training purposes, the bill states that such fees must not be such as to amount to taxation, which makes complete sense.

I acknowledge that the Stevens review was advised that public libraries are finding it difficult to source films other than English for their culturally and linguistically diverse communities—films that were being requested by the residents. We, as Australians, pride ourselves on our multicultural make-up, so this finding was not entirely surprising. As it was not commercially viable to pay the cost of a classification for a comparatively small number of copies of a foreign film to be purchased for libraries, this is completely understandable. For a distributor, the cost implications simply deemed small-scale physical distribution an impossibility. Stevens recommended the development of an exemption for unclassified films in languages other than English for supply to public libraries, and it is pleasing to see that the bill seeks to enact this recommendation in its first phase. I do, however, need to note a couple of key concerns. While the broad strokes are here in terms of meaningful first-step reform, what is lacking are finite, modern definitions of 'cultural exemptions' as well as 'cultural events and exhibitions' and 'approved cultural institutions'. My concern is that this particular loophole has the potential to be exploited, and I hope to see these definitions evolve.

Additionally, I question the effectiveness of kicking the X 18+ or RC classifications to the keeper. I would suggest that there will be a propensity among some to classify content as M to avoid the potential delay in approvals, particularly if the accredited person works in house at a content creator entity. This may be a loophole that requires more analysis once the changes included in this legislation are active in market. To that end, a formal review process of the changes at an agreed time—be that after six months or one year—should be recommended. With that said, I agree with my colleagues that this bill represents a good first step to tackle some of the less contentious issues around classification and I hope to see a more finite detail around the harder aspects of the Stevens review in coming months as the planned phases are rolled out.

See this speech in context