Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the comments of my colleague the member for Adelaide, who has just spoken and who, I have to say, summed up the importance of this legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The legislation, as other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, seeks to modernise the national classification process, given that the changes in the IT sector and society more broadly make the current classification scheme, which is now nearly 30 years old, outdated.

This is stage 1 of a two-stage process and follows an extensive consultation process, as well as the report of the 2020 Stevens review. I have to acknowledge, as others have done, that separate to the Stevens review there were the Australian Law Reform Commission report in 2012 and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Digital Platforms Inquiry report in 2009. The fact that there have been other reviews into this issue highlights the need for reform. It highlights that the current process has not been working as expected and that it is time for it to be reviewed. I note that the Stevens report effectively said that we should be guided by three key principles:

I think that most people in this place would agree with those three key principles. In fact, the Stevens report came up with recommendations that accept those principles and are consistent with them.

The bill will not only deliver on key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms but, specifically, will expand the options for industry to self-classify content so as to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs for business. Secondly, the bill provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality-assure, and revoke where necessary, self-classification decisions. Thirdly, it expands exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries and that would be classified at the G or PG level, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Fourthly, it improves the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Acceptable standards of human behaviour and how they extend to content classification are very much a personal matter. Each of us have our own views about them. They vary across different cultures, different sectors of society and across the world. There is a widely held view that being exposed to certain standards of behaviour can normalise that behaviour and, even worse, may corrupt the minds of some people and perhaps lead to criminal activity and even violence. I believe that there have been many examples across the world, and perhaps even in this country, where certain actions arose because the person who committed those actions had been exposed to content that in some way influenced those actions.

Society looks to governments to enact legislation which widely reflects the views of society and, in particular, expects that those who classify material, whether it be the Classification Board or the independent classifiers, reflect the standards of society. Only time will tell whether that is the case and whether this legislation achieves those objectives. I expect that this legislation will go a long way to doing that. Nevertheless, I stress that when it comes to classifying there is a difference of opinion. It is not an exact science, and there will obviously be a need to continuously review the current methods that are in place and the very processes that are used to achieve those methods. Over the years, though we have had a classification system which I believe was always very well intended, I have nevertheless had cause to write to either the Classification Board or to ACMA about content that had been brought to my attention and that in the view of those who brought it to my attention contravened acceptable standards. I have to say that in many of those cases where I did write to ACMA I generally shared the view of those who were concerned, and I shared those concerns because, when I viewed the material that was brought to me, I could not disagree with the view that what was being shown or perhaps that young people had access to was inappropriate. Nevertheless, that was my view, and I accept that others might see things differently, because these are always subjective matters.

Because they are subjective matters, I simply make this point: a cautionary approach is always preferable. Where any doubt about what is acceptable arises, that objectionable content should be restricted. If in doubt, restrict the material rather than have it out there and perhaps have to review it and pull it back, because, in the meantime, people may have been exposed to material that they never should have been. That is of course of particular concern when we're talking about children and younger people.

That, of course, will be the role of the board. I note that we do have a review board and that both the board and the review board act independently. That is a good thing. They need to be independent, and it's important that the review board is not the same board that made the classification in the first place. Again, I think that's a good thing. I note that, whilst this legislation provides for self-classification by accredited persons or by using approved classification tools, there is always the opportunity for the review board to overturn a position and, in fact, review the classification that has been set. Again, I think that that is appropriate, because that enables the community to respond to matters that arise where they have concerns and to have an appeal body that they can go to that they know will be independent of the persons that made the classification.

I accept that one of the main driving forces behind this legislation is that, because of the volume of content that is now available, whether it's through the TV channels, in films, or through internet streaming services and the like, the process needs to be sped up because, if it's not, it not only delays the classification but, quite frankly, also begins to incur costs on the producers of the material that become somewhat unfair and restrictive. And so, if we can streamline the process and save costs for everybody, I think that's a good thing, and I believe that this legislation enables that to happen.

I also accept the argument as to why public libraries should be given an exemption for films in languages other than English. I well understand that. In a multicultural community that we are all in this place represent, there are many people that quite often go to the local library to access content that is not otherwise accessible to them. It's in limited quantities, which makes it inappropriate or too expensive to have it classified, and so, therefore, the exemption entirely makes sense.

But all these matters are matters that over time we will be able to reflect and report back on as to whether they are working as intended by this legislation. If they are not then I'm sure that the minister would again, as part of that review, make whatever changes are necessary.

Having made those comments, I say that we live in a world where, whether it's the material that we hear broadcast over the radio that we see on our TV screens, whether we go to films, whether it is the online content, whether it's DVDs or whether it's games—whatever the case is—there is so much access to material that to try to properly classify it and ensure that it is appropriate for whoever gets their hands on it is becoming a difficult issue not just here in Australia but right around the world, and a quick look at what other countries are doing just highlights that each country is trying to grapple with the very same problem. Nevertheless, this legislation comes to us now, after the reviews, as legislation that seeks to bring us up to date with today's acceptable standards across society, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context