Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Makin for his fine contribution. It comes as no surprise that I rise to speak in favour of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The past sitting weeks have really seen a stretch in the definition of what a short title is, I've got to say!

The purpose of this particular bill is to make a number of common-sense changes to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The bill moves to introduce a system of industry self-classification by accredited persons who have the authority to make classification decisions. The bill will also clarify some of the Australian Classification Board's powers, including how they are able to regulate the accreditation process of persons delegated with the power to self-classify content, alongside some minor administrative changes that deal with the current requirement for duplicate classification of materials that are currently approved under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The bill also attempts to ease restrictions when it comes to unclassified material that is shown at a number of exempt cultural institutions, as well as in public libraries.

This reform cannot be understated to the ears of many that have been involved in this space for any amount of time. But the Albanese Labor government has listened to the reviews placed on its desk, along with industry groups that have concluded for a number of reasons that it is an area that has been in need of reform for several years now. It is no secret that our current classification scheme is a bit old, to say the least. As it approaches its 30th birthday, if it were human, it would still be joking about the fact that it was adulting all the time to its peers and pretending to understand gen Z humour on TikTok. To extend the metaphor a bit further, both of these things have to adapt to the changing world around them very soon.

Luckily, reforming this system has been on the cards for a number of years, which is a relief to many participants within the system because the classification of the various mediums of content that are available for consumption is important. It has been a way that Australians make an informed decision about content that they are about to consume, whether this be film, TV shows or video games. This is important for parents, guardians and schools, so that children are not exposed to age-inappropriate themes or content. Sometimes we don't think about how that combination of letters and numbers appears on the content they consume, oblivious to the work that went on behind the scenes between the publisher, the Australian Classification Board and all interested parties.

To many, the National Classification Scheme can seem arcane or archaic, and in some part they are right. But it is also a reason why it is incumbent on all to see amendments made to this system—so it can operate seamlessly for all involved. After all, the National Classification Scheme provides a framework that results in the provision of consumer advice based on the content portrayed in various publications that receive classification through the scheme.

It is a product of cooperative federalism, first established jointly by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments back in 1995. The year 1995 was a great one for film, TV shows and even video games. It was a year when, as the member for Lyons has noted, we had Braveheart in our cinemas. It was a golden age, where we had Mel Gibson playing Sir William Wallace. We cheered when he exclaimed, 'But they will never take our freedom!' And we were also far less concerned that what was coming out of the mouth of Mel Gibson was going to be something horrific or regrettable—simpler times, Acting Deputy Speaker, simpler times.

The year 1995 was, of course, back in the days of VHS and an era marked by the widespread proliferation of Blockbuster Video stores across the nation. It was a big year, marking the release of the Sega Saturn and Sony PlayStation 1. It was still a year until the release of Nintendo's Game Boy Pocket and the Nintendo 64. This is perhaps only tenuously relevant, for the sake of background, but I'm also using this as a device to make everyone in the chamber feel a little bit older than perhaps they did before hearing this little bit of trivia! Notwithstanding my cruel reminder of grandfather time, it is demonstrative of the changing mediums of how Australians consume content.

As the years went on, Blockbuster was relegated to being a relic of the past, as with VHS moving along for DVD and Blu-ray, and with digital consumption being today's norm. Presently, we live in an era of content that is consumed digitally through platforms such as Netflix, Stan, Paramount+, Disney+ and Amazon Prime—I'm sure I'm missing several right now. Any regulatory framework that seeks to regulate an industry that is liable to large tectonic shifts must also adapt to these changes or else risk either succumbing to obsolescence or creating unintended consequences, which would make such a framework unworkable in practice. After all, Australians, as consumers of various forms of media, have come a long way since black and white television sets were the norm. We moved from analog formats to digital ones. We then brought the internet into our homes, and then, almost as quickly as the dial-up sound faded into obscurity, we put the internet into the devices in our pockets, the ones we use the most to stay connected and engaged with the world around us.

Despite the many references to the year 1995, the regulation and classification of published content predates the scheme by quite a number of years. The Australian Classification Board was created in the early 1970s, with, at first, only four ratings to choose from: G, for general audiences; PG, for parental guidance suggested for those under 15 years old; M, suggested for persons 13 years and over—which later evolved to M 15+ from the late eighties all the way to 2005—and R, which stood for restricted exhibition and later changed to R 18+ in the late eighties. In 1993, a new classification was introduced, MA 15+, to distinguish content that was stuck in the middle between M and not quite the standard that would be classified as R 18+. Even with that system, video games were only included in this framework within the past 30 years. In the years since, there have been many tweaks to this system of classification, and some were specific to a particular type of publication, such as video games. The ability for a video game to even receive an R 18+ classification was only introduced in 2013, merely a decade ago. Previously, it would have either been MA 15+ or received a 'refused classification' rating and could not be sold or hired out in Australia.

Ultimately—much like Sir William Wallace in 1995's Braveheart, charging against those who seek to take away his freedoms—the scheme is one that is based around the principle that an adult should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want. However, when it comes to those who are younger than adults, this is where the scheme plays an extremely important role. When a child asks where Zed is, the answer should be 'next to X and Y' and not a famous line from a movie that hit the silver screens a year prior, Pulp Fiction. There may be a few more references to come in this—so buckle up!—though I may show a bit of leniency to those who are duty bound to be in the chamber right now and move straight into a small portion of the devil in the detail.

As I mentioned, the current regulatory framework is one that operates cooperatively between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Commonwealth's part is to classify content, and the states and territories are responsible for regulating the sale, exhibition, advertising and hire of that content, which is enforced by law enforcement or fair-trading authorities in a number of different ways throughout the country. Any change to this regulatory framework requires unanimous agreement between the federal government and the state and territory Attorneys-General. It only takes for one to say no to be back at the drawing board, so, admittedly, sometimes progress can be slower than many may desire, whether they be publishers of content or consumers themselves.

It has been observed that the classification of content, whether it be films, television shows, computer games, online and other adult publications, is currently regulated in Australia through a system that has a certain degree of overlap and duplication. It is a system that no longer requires the bottleneck of this duplication to become bogged down, as the sheer amount of new content that is seeking classification through the Australian Classifications Board is significantly larger than what was on its docket a number of years ago.

Currently, films and television shows that are broadcast on television—what we traditionally know as television, in any case—are regulated through the Broadcasting Services Act, which is a regulated by ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. However, if that movie or TV show were not broadcast on television, this is where the scheme would come into play. It would also apply to video games and content such as adult publications. This overlap can be an unnecessary burden, as noted in the Stevens review, and is something the bill intends to address.

Through item 11 in schedule 2, the bill will insert a new proposed division 3 into part (1)(a) of the act. Within that division, newly proposed section 6HA will provide a means whereby films already classified under the Broadcast Services Act will be deemed as classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 if the publication has a rating of 18 + or lower, has not been previously classified under this act and has not been modified after receiving classification.

The 'classify once' doctrine is not just something the industry has been calling for over an extended period of time but is also a commonsense approach to how the law should be applied. This eliminates the need for both the publisher and classifying body to expend additional resources to arrive at the same conclusion reached by another classifying body. It is red tape that has been long overdue for elimination within this regulatory system.

Whilst it may not be entirely germane to the bill itself, as it has been constructed, there are other pertinent recommendations made by the Stevens review that have been seemingly omitted from the bill. However, it is worth pointing out that the introduction of this legislation, in addition to being years overdue, forms just a part of the ongoing process of reforms that the government is moving forward with, in consultation with industry stakeholders and state and territory governments.

A key part of this additional reform process has been a topic of discussion for many years—namely, the need for stronger classification of video games that portray simulated gambling and loot boxes, which, for the uninitiated, are virtual items that are redeemed in the game for a randomised selection of in-game items and which depend contextually on the nature of the game itself. Loot boxes in various forms are sometimes awarded through regular play but, quite often, work in a hybrid system that further rewards and encourages players who purchase an in-game currency using real-world money through microtransactions that will award a better class of loot box.

Well-known and well-loved games such as FIFA, with its Ultimate Team game mode, and the Call of Duty series are notable examples of world-leading games that incorporate loot boxes into their business modes. But the list of games that utilise this feature is a large one that only increases over time. Other jurisdictions have over the years, albeit recently, taken a toughened stance on games with loot boxes or any kind of simulated gambling in them. This applies to new games or even games first published decades ago with a classification denoting that children are able to play—such as the Pokemon series, which featured in-game slot machines. One cannot discount what the impact would be, of exposure to gambling for reward, to children who would have played that game from quite a young age. The only saving grace is that the original series came out long before the relative consoles were able to connect to the internet—thus, no microtransactions.

The current state of play for future reforms to this in Australia would be that loot boxes—which have existed in many different video games that children are able to play, with parental supervision for some—would be given a minimum classification of M for 'mature'. This exceeds the recommendations in the Stevens review, which settled on a PG rating. For games involving simulated gambling exclusively, the review sought a minimum rating of MA 15+ to which the government is consulting with states to go one step further, to potentially mandate an R 18+ classification for any game that contains simulated gambling.

I note that the member for Clark is a huge advocate for controls on gambling of all forms, but in this context his advocacy on loot boxes and simulated gambling in video games is widely known. Though I imagine the proposed changes currently in front of the next stage of this reform process may not be all that he would have hoped for, it is still a process worth engaging in, just the same. Though you would think measures to increase the classification of themes such as this within video games would be a no-brainer, one cannot always be so certain. This is why engagement in the reform process is important—lest the outcome we all expect to happen is altered by loud proponents on the other side of the coin.

I'm glad to see yet more positive reforms occur under this Albanese Labor government. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the next steps taken by the Albanese Labor government to enact further reforms in this space. I thank the House.

See this speech in context