Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is really important legislation, no matter what age group you sit in. I was thinking about classification in preparing for this speech, and I thought back to the 1970s, when I was not allowed to watch Number 96. There won't be many people in here who are of the same vintage, but there are a few of us. Number 96 had a cliffhanger of a season, and I remember my mother and my aunt both agreeing that we were allowed to stay up and watch it, because, even though we weren't regular viewers, we kept up with what was going on.

Back then, they were guided very much by the way that show was classified. As a parent myself, in the 1990s, it was quite easy to control what your children were viewing. There weren't computer games in the same way that there are now. There were certain times of the day on the main TV stations—remember when all we had was a single TV station for each network?—when you knew there was very child-friendly programming. At a certain time it would stop, and, if you were desperate, you'd think, 'Okay, I've got a video that I can put on.' The videos were very clearly classified so that you knew the content. The volume of them was much smaller; the range was much smaller, but I really relied on that. I certainly didn't sit down and watch a video prior to allowing my young children to. So the integrity of the system and the confidence that it keeps up is key.

As my kids got older, I saw that shift into gaming. It is almost impossible, as a parent, to watch over your child's shoulder as they work their way through a game. For me, that was a time of really needing to trust what the classification said; I couldn't be monitoring it in the same way. But that system was re-established in 1995. It's pretty clear that anything done then is really in need of a refresh for the digital age we are in—for the increase in gaming and for the prolific amount of material and content out there. While there's a need for that to be delivered to audiences and for adult audiences to be able to watch what they like, there are clearly limits, particularly where minors are concerned. So I welcome the work that we've done. We're a government and we have ministers like the Minister for Communications, who says there are things that need updating.

There is no shortage of reviews that have informed this piece of work, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report and the 2020 review of Australian classification. In looking at that 2020 review, I note the comments that the system is no longer fit for purpose—that it doesn't serve the needs of all of the users. We're talking about not just viewers and consumers of it but also those who are producing it. Those reviews, as well as thinking about the implications for consumers, were backed by calls from the industry, which has highlighted that reform is long overdue, and I think that's what's really key about this legislation. While it's very important that it's for consumers, this is about making the entire system work better for everybody involved. It's not an 'us and them' mentality; it's, 'This can work better for us all—for all the stakeholders.'

I think it's worth reflecting on the principles that guide the scheme, and those are: that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want; that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; and that everyone should be protected from unsolicited offensive material. Those principles were embedded in the 1995 cooperative arrangements that were put together, and they deserve to be continued today. They are as worthy now as they were all those decades ago. But when we think about the pace, and the way Australians access media content—and, it goes without saying, the online content, the digital access that people have—plus shifting community standards, it's worth noting that the scheme isn't serving its purpose.

Back in March this year, the government made clear that we were committed to a two-stage process in terms of reforming the classification process, and it was understood that the staged approach really enables some immediate improvements to the current scheme while there's necessary consultation so that we can develop a really contemporary and fit-for-purpose framework going forward. That's the approach that we're taking—that this is about that first stage. As in so many things we do, we say there's a lot that needs to be fixed but there's also some thinking that needs to be done that hasn't been done in the past decade, so we're going to do some immediate things that will make improvements but we're going to put in the work to be able to do the really substantial and systemic changes that are needed.

There are two ways right now for industry to have content classified. It's through either submissions to the Classification Board or the use of a minister-approved classification set of tools. With the increase in the amount of content that's now available to Australians, including online, the view is that it is no longer effective, nor is it efficient, to rely so much on the board to classify content. At the same time, it's not possible for every content provider to be able to invest in the automated classification tools that can allow them to do that. So what this bill is doing is really expanding the options that the industry has, to be able to self-classify content. It means that content providers, particularly where there is online content, will be able to comply with the regulations but also to reduce those classification time frames—and, really importantly, to reduce the cost for the business, remembering that many of these game developers are start-ups. They're coming from a low capital base. They're trying to get something out there, that they hope will take off, as quickly as they can. We certainly don't want to restrict the opportunities they have, but we want to make sure that there are clear guidelines so that content is safe for minors to access.

At the same time as allowing this self-classification to happen, we're mindful that there must be safeguards and protections. The bill before us provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's quality-assurance powers. They have the power to revoke a classification, where necessary, from any self-classification decision. This is to ensure appropriate checks and balances at the same time as respecting industry's ability to self-classify. Quite frankly, it is in everyone's interest that the right material is reaching the right people. The outcry from a family who notices that something is amiss will not be good for any content producers. I would certainly be encouraging them to look very closely at the tools available, knowing that things will not fly below the radar. We have an environment where these things are exposed very quickly.

One of the other elements of this first stage of reforms is expanding the exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in language other than English which are being distributed through public libraries. They would typically be classified at the G or PG level. It also covers content that's displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Then there's a fourth part to this first stage of reforms, which is to improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that's been classified already under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

These are the initial steps to bring this classification system into the 21st century. With the staged process, in this bill we've prioritised the things that are needed to help set the scheme on the right path. It also gives us the opportunity to work with key stakeholders to develop a more comprehensive second-stage set of reforms that will allow us to clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme. It will also help establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and ensure that classification criteria are aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations.

I will finish where I started. Looking back at the sorts of things that I was restricted from seeing as a teenager and looking at what the community now deems acceptable for that age group to look at shows that, clearly, things are changing in our community. Some people would argue about whether it was for the better or the worse, but the exposure and sophistication of our teenagers is the reality that we live with. At the same time, as a mum—my kids don't require that supervision now, but their children may one day—I want to know that we're building a system that serves us not only if they're watching TV or seeing a movie but if they're streaming content, if it's interactive content or if they're gaming. I want to know that those protections are there and that it is a system built for that future that is coming. We don't know what that future looks like exactly, so our challenge as a parliament will be to ensure these rules have longevity. I have great confidence in the Minister for Communications and that that our second stage of reforms will help set this sector and this classification system in the 21st century.

See this speech in context