Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to 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.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I thank the member for Cowper for his contribution.

'Intense, passionate and deeply emotional, a sense of raw determination and strength, capturing the essence of a man driven by a burning desire for freedom and justice.' These words could have been written about many in this place, but they are from a review describing the phenomenal performance of Mel Gibson as William Wallace in 1995's Braveheart. Gibson portrays Wallace as a brave and charismatic Scottish leader, inspiring his people to fight for freedom. He gains numerous victories against the English, becoming a legendary figure like a 13th century Dave Warner—although I'm sure David would hope for a more peaceful and less divisive end to his life.

1995 may feel like yesterday to many of us in this place—although not all, judging by some of the youngsters on this side of the House in particular. Although the time may feel like it has passed in the blink of an eye, technology has come a long way in 28 years. As well as Braveheart, 1995 brought us The Usual Suspects; 12 Monkeys; Babe, the talking pig; Tom Hanks being shot into space in Apollo 13 and then being grounded as Woody in Toy Story's first outing; and the movies Sevendon't open the box!—and Bad Boys. VHS was king and video rental stores were big business in every shopping mall. Kids these days will never know of the tantalising wait for a video to rewind or a computer game cassette to load. As for the internet, dial-up was still king and just 10 per cent of Australians were using the net.

1995 is when the National Classification Scheme was established, and it's remained largely unchanged. Technology has moved on, but our National Classification Scheme remains stuck in the past like a tape caught in the old head unit. We've moved a long way from those days. Movies, TV shows and social media are available 24/7 on demand. No longer is the TV in the front room the only screen in the house, where families would gather together for a shared experience and, for young ones, a managed experience. Now most households have multiple screens: TVs, desktop computers, tablets, laptops and smartphones, all connected all the time to multiple avenues for film, TV, social media and gaming. Families share their viewing less, and children's viewing is less supervised and curated. Limiting the kids' access to content deemed unsuitable is a never-ending and laborious task, completely undermined, at the end of the day, by our kids' ability to watch what their parents don't want them to on their friends' devices. As technology has advanced and entertainment options have expanded, the need for a robust classification system has become more evident. There is more content created than ever before, and it's being created more quickly and getting to market more quickly. So how can the Classification Board possibly cope with cobwebbed guidelines last substantially changed 28 years ago?

Film classification boards play a vital role in empowering audiences, protecting artistic freedom and ensuring responsible entertainment. Australian families rely on classifications to make informed choices about what they and those they care for watch, read and play. The classification system helps parents, guardians and consumers make informed decisions about the suitability of movies and games for different age groups. It ensures that children's exposure to unsuitable content can be curated and limited. The system serves as a guide for consumers, allowing them to choose content that aligns with their preferences, sensitivities and values. It empowers individuals to make choices based on their comfort level with certain themes or content. Some content may be potentially harmful or distressing for certain audiences, such as young children or individuals with specific sensitivities. The system can help to safeguard these vulnerable groups from exposure to potentially harmful material or, indeed, unwanted material. The classification system promotes consistency and uniformity in the entertainment industry. It helps studios and developers understand the appropriate content to include in their creations for specific audiences and to avoid potential controversies or legal issues.

Having a transparent classification system builds trust between content creators and consumers. It provides clarity about the content's nature and prevents any misunderstandings or misinformation, and it demonstrates that the entertainment industry takes its social responsibilities seriously. It shows there is a commitment to protecting audiences from content that may not be suitable for those audiences.

Film is more than mere entertainment; it is an integral part of our cultural and historical heritage. Some films hold immense historical value, reflecting the mindset and sentiments of the past. Film classification boards play a crucial role in preserving these artefacts and ensuring their accessibility to future generations. By categorising classic films appropriately, film classification boards ensure that these treasures can be enjoyed responsibly by all audiences. They help educate younger viewers about our cultural heritage, our changing values and the evolution of storytelling in cinemas. With access to more content at the click of a button than we've ever had before, it's important that we update our classification system.

In March, the Albanese government committed to a process of reform to improve and modernise our classification system for the modern user and modern day media. It will be a two-stage process. As online content increases, with largely foreign owned streaming services vastly outnumbering live TV channels from traditional free-to-air broadcasters, we need a modern way to deal with classifications for this content without relying on the Classification Board to deal with the waves of new online content.

This bill supports the implementation of the first stage of this process by introducing a number of changes to modernise the system. These changes will help us improve the capacity to deal with large volumes of online content, increase access to cultural content and promote industry compliance. This bill will make the classification system fit for purpose for modern day media by expanding options for the industry to self classify content 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. It will provide appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality-assure, and revoke where necessary, self-classification decisions. Eligibility criteria will be put in place to ensure that only fit and proper people can be accredited to classify content. We'll expand exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English, being distributed through public libraries that will 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. And we'll improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Moving to only needing to classify content once will remove a huge barrier in terms of time and convenience to broadcasters.

This first stage of changes will enable us to work with key stakeholders when we implement more comprehensive reforms in the second stage of the proposed bill that will establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and ensuring the criteria are aligned with evolving community expectations and guidelines.

A modern classification system will strike the right balance between expressing creative freedom and respecting community standards. A modern Classification Board will empower audiences by providing information to help them make informed choices. Balancing these roles, classification boards contribute to a responsible and enriching experience for all. Their commitment to preserving cultural heritage, educating audiences and maintaining the balance between artistic freedom and social norms makes them indispensable allies to both creators and audiences. I commend the bill to the House.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The legislation being debated today is the first stage of the Albanese government's two-stage reform process—the important and complex process of updating our national classification framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it works for Australians.

The National Classification Scheme was introduced in 1995. It required agreement between all states and territories and has been left largely unchanged, despite the rapid transformation of the media landscape and how Australians consume content. In 1995, 2.8 per cent of the Australian population were internet users. In 2020, that number stood at 89.6 per cent. The National Classification Scheme is in urgent need of review if it is to continue to provide Australian consumers with accurate information on the content they are consuming, ensuring they can trust the integrity of the scheme.

Since 1995 Australia's classification arrangements have been the subject of several reviews, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's 2019 report and the Stevens review, handed to the Morrison government three years ago, which has now been released by the Albanese government. The Stevens review was a comprehensive, 145-page document that highlighted the need for a system that can better adapt to the fast-changing nature of the media landscape, one that provides information to Australians. The conclusion that all three reviews had in common was that the classification system is out of date and aspects of the system are no longer fit for purpose. The industry, itself, has been highlighting the need for reform. This bill will implement the Albanese government's first stage of this reform process.

A key element of this bill will expand options for the industry to self-classify content. Currently, in order to classify content, submissions must be made to the Classification Board, or minister-approved classification tools must be used; however, this process is outdated and time-consuming as the volume of content has increased so rapidly. It has become cumbersome, resource-intensive and inefficient for industry, especially content providers who do not have the necessary resources. The new process will establish a new accreditation system that allows individuals who are trained and accredited to classify content. It will reduce time frames, allow faster classification and reduce the cost for business. It is a measure that is good for both businesses and consumers. However, there must be an appropriate level of safeguards and oversight of the new self-classification system. The legislation will expand the powers of the Classification Board and introduce provisions to ensure the proper regulation of the system. These provisions will include criteria to assess individuals seeking accreditation, as well as a provision to suspend or revoke accreditation. This legislation will ensure the quality of the self-classification of those accredited. This is necessary not only to ensure the integrity of the system but also so that consumers have confidence in the classifications—that they mean what they say. The board will revoke and change classifications as necessary.

The bill provides classification exemptions for certain low-risk content. This includes low-risk content such as films that are in a language other than English and that are distributed through public libraries and displayed by approved cultural institutions, exhibitions and events. This is an important change to cut the administrative red tape for cultural and artistic use of content and make accessibility easier for consumers. Additionally, this bill will further streamline the process of classification for content that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This bill supports the principle of 'classify once'. Currently, such content is required to be reclassified under the classification act—an issue that was noted in the 2020 Stevens review and the 2019 ACCC review—which is an inefficient and burdensome requirement. Simply put, content that has not been altered or modified and that has already been classified should not need to be reclassified. Removing this requirement will harmonise and improve the efficiency of the system. This is a commonsense change.

The changes detailed in this bill are part of our commitment to reforming the classification system—a system that has been in place for decades with little change. It is a difficult task. As such, this bill has been introduced ahead of the second stage of reforms, prioritising the immediate improvements and adjusting the scheme to put it on the right path in preparation for comprehensive second-stage reforms. Whilst a long process, it is an important one, and it must be done correctly to ensure that consumers and content providers are confident in the system and, more importantly, that everyone has the protection they require.

I commend the work of the Minister for Communications, both on the bill that is currently before the House and on the extensive consultation process that is continuing. The Australian community expects a robust, responsive and modern classification framework, and that is what the Albanese government is delivering. I commend the bill to the House.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. We have all seen those colourful icons when watching a movie, as well as the voice overs at the very start of a TV program saying: 'This program is rated PG. Parental guidance is not recommended for viewers under the age of 15.' Some would say this is iconic, but it serves a real and useful purpose. These classifications are not just for movies and TV but are also used for video games and publications, such as magazines. Ratings can range from G, which is suitable for everyone, all the way up to MA, which is suitable for those aged 15-plus and which children under the age of 15 may not legally watch, buy or hire unless they are in the company of a parent or an adult guardian, and R is restricted to adults only.

They say you can't judge a book by its cover. That is also the case for film and television, and even video games. You can never really know what you're buying until you watch it or play it. That is why these classifications are so important, especially for families. As a father of two young girls I know how useful these classifications are, because they always try to get to watch something they shouldn't be. I would not want to expose my daughters to something they should not be exposed to because I didn't realise it contained things that were inappropriate. Think of the movie Ted, for example. It's not my type of movie, but it's an example of a movie with a misleading name. Imagine watching Ted with the family and thinking it was a movie about a teddy bear! In reality, the movie is rated MA15-plus, being suitable for an audience aged 15 and over. Because of our classification system, families know that this movie is not on the cards for a family movie night—even though my girls will still try to make that happen!

The National Classification Scheme has served us well since it was introduced in 1995, but it has remained largely unchanged since it was first introduced. We all know that the world is very different now to the world in 1995. Our kids are growing up in a world that in many ways hardly resembles what the world was almost 30 years ago. As a result, our classification standards are falling behind the times. They have not kept up with the pace of Australians' access to media content, particularly the rapid growth in online content. For the scheme to act effectively as a guide for Australians to choose what content they view, it needs to be trusted and reliable. But when the system is seen as being outdated, it is difficult to trust. This threatens the integrity of the scheme and the confidence Australians have in this source of information.

There have been multiple reviews into the scheme. The Australian Law Reform Commission produced a report in 2012 and also in 2020 based on reviews of Australian classification regulation. Both made findings that there are aspects of the scheme that are no longer fit for purpose. There are also strong calls from industry making the same claims. It is clear that reform of this scheme is needed and long overdue.

The needs of the modern Australian family are completely different in 2023 than they were even just over a decade ago. Our children are more easily exposed to all sorts of content all over the internet without any kind of regulation. This is dangerous and could harm our young people. That's why the government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australian families. This bill will introduce our government's first stage of reforms to a national classification scheme. There is more content available to Australians than ever before, and there are even more content providers, providing this content. This is largely driven by the huge amount of content that can be found online. With these large numbers of content providers today, especially online content providers, it can be difficult to comply with classification regulations, and the time frames and costs involved have an impact on this. This bill will address this issue, specifically by expanding options for industry to self-classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs for their business. There is also a whole range of cultural content which is absolutely fine for people of any age to be exposed to but does not need to be classified. This bill expands exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than England that would be classified at G or PG level being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. This makes the system fairer and more streamlined by making a commonsense change that does not harm anyone at all.

Before 1995, some content was regulated under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Right now there is a requirement that this content be reclassified in line with the current national classification scheme but, more often than not, this is just doing the same job twice. This bill will improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

We have a lot of work to do in this area, and these changes are just stage 1 of our broader two-stage classification reform process. This staged approach is very significant and it is well thought-out. The changes in the first stage are important as they are needed to help set the scheme on the right path forward. That is why we have prioritised this stage and implemented it immediately. This first stage will also open the door for further changes, meaning that the government is able to work with key stakeholders to develop more comprehensive second-stage reforms. These reforms will have focus on clarifying the purpose of the scheme. A scheme which is lacking clarity in its purpose will not achieve any objective at all, so it's very important that everyone is clear on what the scheme seeks to achieve. It's also important that the scheme actually achieves what it was intended to achieve. It needs to be relevant to the modern age and incorporate factors that were not as major when it was first introduced, like the internet and the online space. Stage 2 will ensure this by establishing fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements.

This next point is perhaps the most important. The scheme must be guided by what the community deems to be appropriate. If it is there to guide the community, it must reflect the values and thoughts of the community, otherwise it's irrelevant and will provide false guidance. This is why we will make sure that classification criteria is aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. There is a whole range of issues that have real impacts on our community today which may not have been topics of sensitivity in the past, or their impact may have been overlooked. These kinds of issues may be expressed in content, but other classification standards fail to advise the community that they may be triggering content. This shows how the guidelines have failed to move with the times and how they have failed to achieve their objective of properly providing advice on the type of content people are choosing to watch in order to avoid this content causing harm to them or their families.

It is great to see that earlier this year the Classification Board updated consumer advice to make sure Australians are better informed about whether a film contains potentially triggering content such as bullying, suicide and self-harm, as well as disturbing content related to horror or blood and gore. In 2022, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and the Arts surveyed 2,000 Australians on their values and their understanding and use of classification information. This showed that Australians want more information about what they are watching to avoid any unwanted and possibly confronting surprises.

Our world and our country have changed significantly, and they are continuing to change. The amount of content available and the content type that is available, the ease of accessibility of such content, and the standards and expectations of a community are all elements which are constantly changing in the ever-evolving world we live in now. Our classification framework needs to keep up with all of these factors in order to properly serve its purpose. This bill will create a contemporary classification framework that will serve all Australians into the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

URPHY () (): As speakers before me have noted, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is the first of the government's responses to the Stevens review and, of course, it's a very important response. The 2020 Stevens review was released by this government in March of this year. I was really pleased to see the minister make a number of commitments on behalf of the Australian government—expanding options for industry to self-classify content, providing exemption from classification for foreign-language films distributed by public libraries and routine exhibitions hosted by cultural institutions, and removing the need to reclassify content that has already been classified for television We see that commitment come to fruition in this bill. The government also committed to consulting with industry and other key stakeholders on broader classification reforms, and that consultation is something that the minister and the minister's office have been very diligent about doing.

The third announcement, which is something I wanted to briefly speak about, is to seek agreement of state and territory attorneys-general as co-partners in the scheme to introduce a mandatory minimum classification of R 18+ for games which contain simulated gambling, and M for computer games containing paid loot boxes. I'm the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We recently finished quite a long inquiry into the regulatory regime and harm reduction for online gambling, and it included looking at loot boxes and simulated gambling.

As we concluded in the report that we recently handed down, the evidence was clear that young Australians—children—are increasingly exposed to gambling-like activities. They're widely available and marketed to them on all digital platforms. There is a problem with the regulation and age gating. One only has to speak to parents to know that that is the case. My friends talk about their nine-, 10- and 11-year-old children using loot boxes and simulated gambling in online gaming; they didn't realise they were using it until they really stopped and interrogated the game. Mind you, one of my friend's children was smart enough to know how to use her credit card to pay. And you don't need anecdotes like that. The research presented to the committee suggests that simulated gambling in interactive games normalises gambling for children and young people and carries risks for lifelong addictive behaviours and the range of harms that online gambling causes.

There is still some debate within the evidence about whether there is a causal link or simply a correlation between the harms of loot box features and young people gambling with real money and experiencing harm from gambling in adulthood. But it's the committee's view and my view that we shouldn't be waiting. We shouldn't be waiting for another generation to be exposed to something that we know is, at the very least, associated with—and some of the evidence suggests it's causal—significant harms when we know the significant harms that online gambling is already causing adults in our community. That is why the committee was very pleased with the government's commitment to dealing with this, in part, through changes to the classification scheme.

The world has changed so significantly since most of us were children that sometimes it's hard to understand the changes. I had no idea what a loot box was before I started this inquiry, which we recently finished. It's yet another way that technology has improved lives but also has the potential and the reality to cause harm. It raises again that it is incumbent on governments to be alert to this, regulate, and work with industry, and not just always be playing catch up. That is why the government has committed to implementing important reforms in this bill.

We've reached a point where most people understand that it's not viable just to sit back and say, 'Let's see how this piece of technology evolves' or 'Let's see what happens with this and then we can work out what to do with it.' At times, that has been an appropriate way to regulate and to legislate. But things are changing so fast that the harms can sometimes not be predicted. We need to review where we're at and what sort of framework we can put in place that has the capacity to deal with the known and the unknown changes that are coming. It may well have to be tweaked and changed as we go, but at least we'll have a framework to deal with these things. The classification system's framework hasn't been updated for so long that it hasn't been able to do that.

I want to return briefly to loot boxes and simulated gaming. There is no doubt that the government's commitment is a good first step in ensuring that consumers can make more informed purchasing decisions and is consistent with the evidence we received in the inquiry about the harm of these types of games. Some games contain loot boxes more closely resembling gambling than others and, therefore, have a greater risk of harm. As the government is conducting its consultation, it's worth considering a granular approach to determining the classification of games with loot boxes through the National Classification Scheme. Games containing loot boxes that can be purchased and closely resemble gambling should be given a higher classification.

There is also an issue with online app stores. They vary in their age-rating systems—for example, Steam, a popular computer game storefront, doesn't require game developers to classify games at all. There is some work to be done there as well so that ratings are uniform across all platforms and consumers can have clear and consistent information to help them make safer choices.

The social policy and legal affairs committee also received submissions about a number of consumer protections that the government could consider to complement changes to the National Classification Scheme when we're talking about loot boxes and simulated gambling. They include things like public information campaigns to educate consumers, parents, caregivers, teachers and young people on elements of simulated gambling, and the need to make sure that warning labels that come with online gambling tools are effective and that people, particularly parents, understand that such warnings mean there's a risk element in the game. We need to consider incorporating effective simulated-gambling warning labels into the National Classification Scheme, and we need to look at what minimum consumer protections for interactive games should be and whether any of them need legislative mechanisms—for example, spending controls, transparent odds and drop rates for items, and algorithmic loot box figures disabled as a default setting, allowing players to opt in.

A number of international jurisdictions have looked at banning loot boxes and simulated gambling. The committee didn't feel that we had enough evidence to say whether that's an effective way to address the issue or whether, in fact, it would have more positive than negative consequences. There are examples out there that the government can also monitor to see the outcome of different approaches in different jurisdictions. I'm confident that the minister will look at all of these issues in her consultations. I know that this government is committed to making the classification scheme fit for purpose for the modern time, but it's also committed to putting harm reduction at the heart of how we look at issues like gambling and simulated gambling, which, as I started off, is often a gateway—if I can put it like that—to actual gambling.

I'm very pleased that we have a government that's acting on the Stevens review and will be taking classification seriously and working with industry to make sure it works. I commend this piece of legislation and congratulate the government and the minister for their commitment to continuing with this process.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The classification of films, TV shows, books, video games and other digital content provides important information for Australians, and particularly parents. I was listening to the member for Macquarie's contribution just now, reflecting on the way that my engagement with the classification scheme has changed from my time as a child to, now, my time as a parent. As a child, I railed against the restrictions that my parents imposed on me, in not allowing me to consume the content that I wanted to; but as a parent I look on the scheme somewhat differently, as an important source of information and an important guardrail to help us allow our children to develop at a developmentally appropriate pace. Indeed, Australian families rely on classifications to help them make informed choices about what they and those they care about watch, read and play.

Unfortunately, our classification scheme is no longer fit for purpose. The way that content is delivered to Australians has changed enormously in recent years. The creative industries are inherently technologically driven, and we've seen a fair bit of technology change since the National Classification Scheme was introduced. There have been vast changes to how Australians consume content, and the Classification Scheme hasn't kept up. The National Classification Scheme really has remained largely unchanged since its introduction in 1995. It hasn't kept pace with the way that Australians access media content, particularly the rapid growth of online media content and online content distribution platforms.

Think about what the media landscape looked like in 1995—the first year that I started high school—a great year for content. Die Hard with a Vengeance was the highest-grossing film worldwide—a great film. Val Kilmer was playing Batman in Batman Foreverprobably a less good film. ER was dominating the TV ratings. And, very importantly for me at the time, the PlayStation first launched in the United States and Europe. In 1995 we were a long way off from smartphones, streaming services and online delivery of gaming content—all many of the ways that Australians consume content today. A classification scheme based on rules from the 1990s and the world that we lived in in the 1990s—while I'm told it's becoming cool again in a retro way, which is kind of depressing for how old I feel in this place—isn't fit for purpose. It needs to be updated so that Australians can have confidence in it as a trusted source of information.

Several reviews, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report and the 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation, have found that the National Classification Scheme is no longer fit for purpose. We've spent too much time without acting on this. The 2012 ALRC review was a review that I participated in before I came into this place, and even at that time it was obvious that we needed to get moving on reform. These reviews, as well as calls from industry, have highlighted that the reform of the scheme is long overdue, and I congratulate the minister at the desk, Minister Rowland, for grabbing the bull by the horns.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and modern consumers of content in a modern technological environment. We're doing so in a sensible, methodical, staged way. A staged approach allows us to make urgent and immediate improvements to the scheme while the government undertakes consultation. This will enable the government to work with key stakeholders to clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme, to establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements, and to ensure that classification criteria is aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. There's no point in regulating in this space in a way that creates dead letter law, that's not reflective of practice in the sector, that's not implementable and that doesn't reflect modern community standards. Consultation is really important as part of these reforms.

This will create a contemporary classification framework that will serve all Australians into the future. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will deliver on key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms. Specifically, it will expand options for industry to self-classify content, to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and to reduce classification time frames and costs for business. It provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality-assure and revoke, where necessary, self-classification decisions. It expands exemptions for classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Finally, 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.

It's worth pausing to consider how radically different the classification task is today from how it was in 1995. Just the sheer volume of content available in the Australian jurisdiction means that the old way of classification just isn't viable in the new world. The mode-shifting of content, as well—not something that was really anticipated in the nineties—is the norm now. People consume the same content across different platforms and different mediums. It has the same impact on kids, though, or on other consumers. We need a new way that's not just the top-down, narrow pipe of government classifying, and that's what this scheme delivers.

The Albanese Labor government isn't only committed to reforming the National Classification Scheme. We recognise the evolving creative industries and content environment, and we're committed to supporting Australia's creative industries. The Labor Party has a long, proud history of supporting the arts and Australian content makers. It's not just a calling. It's not just a vocation. It's not just an outlet for artistic expression. It's a job. It's an industry. It's an economic engine for our nation. We recognise that. This is not only because Australians are talented, emotive, evocative storytellers who can achieve international success when given the right support but also because it makes economic sense. It's enlightened self-interest.

Our arts, entertainment and cultural sector is a $17 billion industry that employs an estimated 400,000 Australians. Unfortunately, it's also a sector that was left adrift after a lost decade of policy and funding neglect under the former government. That's why we announced a new national cultural policy, called Revive, backed by a $286 million funding commitment over four years. This has been supported by the establishment of Creative Australia, the Australian government's new principal arts investment and advisory body backing the creative potential and economic power of Australian artists and creators.

I want to give a brief shout-out at this point to one specific sector of Australia's content creators and our artistic industries, and that's the Australian digital games industry. I was very pleased in the last parliament to be the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Video Games. It created some new opportunities for engagement in this place, including running the first Twitch stream from Parliament House with my friend the now Minister for Home Affairs, playing an outstanding Australian game, Moving Out, while also having a conversation with people who joined in to watch the stream and talk about the potential of the Australian gaming sector.

You only have to look at the products that Australian video game developers have produced over recent years to see the potential here. We really punch above our weight, whether that's the simple mobile game and video game Florence, which won a swathe of indie awards a few back, about a young woman moving to Melbourne—the greatest city in the world—and falling in love. It's a great creative enterprise expressed through video gaming. Another great Melbourne video gaming product is Untitled Goose Game, the story of a goose that goes wild in a village—not an obvious concept for a video game but a worldwide blockbuster and award winner, the product of four guys in Melbourne coming together to produce something that is not just a wonderful artistic product but a real economic engine. Or there's Moving Out, the game I discussed earlier that the Minister for Home Affairs and I streamed from Parliament House, a video game where you work collaboratively with a partner to move furniture out of a home into a removal van. It sounds prosaic—madcap fun. It's harder than it looks, too; I'll give you that tip. My personal favourite in recent years is The Cult of the Lamb, a game where you establish a blood cult, as a lamb, and have to acquire followers for your cult. It's not to everyone's taste, but it's a really successful game on the international market.

Then there are the bigger studios in Australia, like Big Ant Studios, who have produced the Australian Open tennis game series in recent years as well as the AFL game. I was really pleased to be able to visit Big Ant Studios in the last term of parliament, along with the member for Macnamara, in his own electorate, where we were digitised and put into the game in all our 3D glory. I know that the member for Wills will appreciate this: the member for Macnamara and I, in our digital form, played in a doubles game against Rafael Nadal. The digital power of Big Ant Studios enabled us to compete with Rafael Nadal. I mean, that requires some seriously impressive computer engineering capability!

The video games industry in Australia is the largest creative industry in the world, worth approximately $250 billion. And the video games industry is a potential billion-dollar industry for Australia—a high-skilled and high-wage industry, involving skills that are transferable to a range of other critical industries, like, significantly, cybersecurity and AI development. But we haven't been capitalising on this potential. In Australia, game development studios employed only around 100 full-time workers in 2021 and generated $226.5 million.

On this side of the House we know we need to support and grow the video game industry as an ecosystem. That's why the Albanese Labor government established the Digital Games Tax Offset. The offset creates a 30 per cent tax offset for eligible games developers that spend a minimum of $500,000 on qualifying Australian development expenditure, effective from 1 July 2022. And the Digital Games Tax Offset will help the growth of the Australian video games industry. And I thank the members of parliament from the other side of the House who are in Parliamentary Friends of Video Games for their advocacy on this issue. Hopefully this tax offset will mean that more Australian classics like Untitled Goose Game and The Cult of the Lamb will be showcased to the world.

Labor has been supportive of our video game industry for a long time. Indeed, in 2012 we established the Australian Interactive Games Fund, with $20 million in funding to support our domestic video games industry. But while we had a vision for the future of the industry 10 years ago—we saw the opportunity for what investment in the domestic industry could bring—I regret to inform the House that in 2014 it took the new coalition government only six months to tear that up. It's indicative of the decade of lost time that we had under those opposite. It left a massive hole in government support for the industry and really left us trailing our peer nations—competitor countries like Canada, which has strongly backed its domestic video game production industry for quite some time. So, we're catching up on that now. We're investing in it.

The bill before the House really recognises that video games, online streaming platforms—the myriad ways that we now enjoy digital content—have changed radically since the establishment of the National Classification Scheme in the 1990s, and we need our classification scheme to respond to this new world. That's what this bill is doing: creating the information parents need in order to guide their decisions on what content their kids consume as well as what content any Australians consume, but doing it in a way that also recognises the incredible economic opportunities our creative industries represent. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Gellibrand, I want to acknowledge all of our Australian creatives who are making incredible content, whether that be the video game makers—I'm very keen to see the Untitled Goose Game and give that a crack. I met this morning with Screen Producers Australia, who represent a lot of film and TV content makers, and I've been working closely with children's content producers to look at ways in which we can encourage that sector so that our kids grow up watching Australian content and not all foreign content.

Australians know what good content is, but it's important, particularly when it comes to our kids, that they're seeing their own lives, stories, places and spaces reflected in the content that Australian creatives are making and that we continue to encourage screen companies in making that content available for our kids. I speak for my family and I'm sure many other Australian families when I say that we rely very much on classifications to make informed choices. For my kids—Sally, 11 and a bit, and Frank, almost 10—as they start to move into the teenage years, it will become more important that we are supported in making good decisions, informed choices, about what we watch, read and play.

The national classification system has remained largely unchanged since its introduction in 1995, almost a generation ago. The scheme is based on the principle that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want but that minors, children, should be protected from material that's likely to harm or disturb them and that everyone should be protected from unsolicited or offensive material. These are all principles very much worth pursuing today—perhaps more than ever, given the changes in the way that Australians access media content, particularly with the rapid growth in online content. But since 1995—a long time ago—the national classification scheme has not kept up with these changes.

We've heard a bit about the scheme's inactivity in the last 10 years. I think this threatens the integrity of the scheme and the confidence that Australians have in it as a trusted source of information. The Australian Law Reform Commission's 2012 report Classification—content regulation and convergent media and the more recent 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation by Neville Stevens, which our government released a couple of months ago, found that aspects of the scheme are no longer fit for purpose.

These reviews as well as calls from industry have highlighted that reform of the scheme is long overdue. Our government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and modern Australian families. That's why, in March this year, the government committed to a two-stage process of classification reform. A staged approach will enable immediate improvements to the current scheme to progress now, while the government undertakes necessary consultation to develop a contemporary and fit-for-purpose classification framework, one that reflects the modern media environment and will serve all Australians into the future.

This bill supports the implementation of that first stage of the government's classification reforms, by introducing a number of changes to existing classification arrangements, and delivers on key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms. This bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to improve the capacity of the national classification scheme to efficiently manage a rapid growth in the volume of classifiable content, particularly online content, to reduce costs, to promote industry compliance and to increase access to cultural content in public libraries and approved cultural institutions. As an aside: when I was first elected to this place, I started and have now handed on to the member for Bean and his offsider the parliamentary friendship group for GLAM—galleries, libraries, archives and museums—because our cultural institutions are so important. I'm really pleased that this bill is going to see an increase in access to cultural content in our public libraries and those approved cultural institutions.

Specifically, it expands options for industry to self-classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames and costs to business. It will also provide for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality assure, and revoke where necessary, self-classification decisions. It also expands exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content, including films in languages other than English that would be classified at the G or PG level being distributed through public libraries, as well as content that is displayed by approved cultural institutions as part of routine exhibitions and events. Finally, it will improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Under the national classification scheme, publications generally do not need to be classified prior to being made available to consumers. Only 'submittable publications' are required to be classified. If you're wondering what 'submittable publication' means, you're in luck because I'm about to tell you. A submittable publication is one that is likely to be restricted to adults because it contains depictions or descriptions likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult and is unsuitable for a minor to either see or read. The director of the Classification Board has the power to call in submittable publications for classification where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a publication is a submittable publication.

This bill prioritises immediate first stage reforms, which are needed to help set the scheme on the right path. It enables the government to work with key stakeholders to develop more comprehensive second stage reforms to (1) clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme, (2) establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and (3) ensure that classification criteria are aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations.

Currently, there are two ways for industry to have content classified: either through submissions to the Classification Board or through the use of minister-approved classification tools. The rapid growth in the volume of content now available to Australians, particularly online, means that it is no longer efficient or effective to rely on the board to classify content. In addition, not every content provider has the resources to invest in the development of automated classification tools.

To address this—and it is an issue—the bill expands options for industry to self-classify content. Content providers, particularly online content providers, will be able to comply with classification regulations and reduce classification time frames, which is also going to reduce the cost for business. The bill establishes a new accreditation scheme to enable content to be classified by individuals who are trained and accredited by the government.

To support the expansion of self-classification arrangements, the bill introduces a number of safeguards, as you would expect, that are important for this process to have integrity. Eligibility criteria will ensure that only fit and proper people are accredited to classify content—no weirdos. Provisions for accreditation to be suspended or revoked for failure to appropriately classify content will also apply.

The Classification Board's powers to quality assure self-classification decisions will be expanded to include decisions by accredited classifiers, similar to arrangements already in place for decisions of approved classification tools. This bill also provides further clarification around the use of consumer advice to ensure that this advice, which is an important source of information for consumers, is appropriately and consistently applied in classification decisions.

The bill expands classification exemptions for low-risk content, where it is sensible and beneficial to do so—sensible reforms. Classification exemptions will be introduced for certain films in languages other than English being distributed through public libraries, as I previously mentioned. This will improve access to cultural content and ease the regulatory burden on cultural institutions that provide such content to our constituents.

To improve the efficiency of the classification system, material already classified under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 will no longer need to be reclassified for distribution on other platforms. This supports the classify-once principle, where content that has been classified using similar classification guidelines and has not been modified does not need to be classified again. This is another sensible approach, and one that was advocated for in the Stevens review and in the recommendation of the ACCC's 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry for a national uniform classification scheme to classify or restrict access to content consistently across different delivery formats as part of a harmonised media regulatory framework.

Our government has pioneered classification reforms in our first year in office. I think this is another example of us doing more in one year than those opposite were capable of doing in 10. We are committed to reforming the national classification scheme to ensure it meets the needs of modern Australia, and this is important. My family and many Australians rely on the classification system to make informed choices about the content that they and those in their care watch, read and play. Continued inaction on modernising the scheme threatens its integrity and the confidence Australians have in it as a trusted source of information, both for themselves and for their loved ones. These reforms will create a contemporary classification framework, one that will serve us all well into the future, in two stages—immediate action and then further consultation for further reforms.

I want to finish by reiterating how important this industry is and how important it is that families have confidence in the classification system—that it is updated to ensure it responds effectively to changes in the communications apparatus that our kids have in their hands these days. It is important that we also educate our children. They are able to access a far broader range of information and content than ever before, so we need to make sure that we give them the tools to cope with that. Our government is providing an updated classification system that will protect our kids, and that is really important.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. It is a bill that is welcomed by all of us on this side, and it is a bill that hasn't come early enough. I say that because Australian families rely on classification to make informed choices about what they and those in their care watch, read and play. I have grandkids who are very tech savvy—in fact, more so than me—and they play all sorts of games on computers, mobiles et cetera.

The national classification scheme has remained largely untouched since its introduction in 1995, so it hasn't been touched in a number of years. When you think of where we were at with technology in 1995, people would have had a TV in their homes and, for very few, a computer. Maybe a few did, but that was about it. Mobile phones were just starting to ascend, and technology was nowhere near where it is today. Technology has moved at a furious pace. We can now access whatever we want from the internet. We can choose to have pay TV or choose channels that we want. There are a whole range of things, such as mobile phones, that have changed the whole landscape, yet legislation hasn't kept up. That's why this piece of legislation is very important. It's important because it brings us up to date to where we are. As I said, it hasn't been touched since 1995.

I'll start off from the point that this is good legislation. It's legislation that will assist people to make informed choices of what they and those that are in their care are going to watch, play or read. But I still think the most important aspect in this field is parents themselves. This is, in no way, taking away that responsibility. I think the responsibility remains with parents in relation to what their children are watching, reading or playing and to be monitoring it at all times. That's a very important message. No matter what governments do, no matter what we put in place, I think a responsible parent will always keep an eye on what they're doing, playing and watching, and that is very important. I just wanted to get that message out there. Nevertheless, this will make their job a bit easier, in terms of classifications and knowing the guidelines and where and what is suitable for whom.

When you look at this, we haven't kept in pace with the way Australians access their media, gaming et cetera for many years. As I said, 1995 was when we had the last major revamp in this area. What that means is that this threatens the integrity of the scheme and the confidence that Australians have in it as a trusted source of information. So it's important legislation that'll bring some trust back and some guidelines.

We know there have been several reviews, including the Australian Law Reform Commission report of 2012 and the 2020 Review of Australian classification regulation. They found that there are aspects of the old scheme that are no longer fit for purpose. These reviews were a basis for this legislation, but these reviews, as well as calls from the industry itself, have highlighted that reform of the scheme was long overdue. This government is committed to reforming the scheme. As we heard the previous member say, for 10 years nothing was done. We're very proud that within our first year and a bit we are reforming the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and today's families.

This bill will deliver on some of the key elements of the government's first stage of classification reforms. Specifically, it will expand options for industry to self-classify content to make it easier for content providers, particularly online content providers, to comply with the classification regulations and to reduce classification time frames and costs to business, which is very important. It also provides for appropriate safeguards and oversight by expanding the Classification Board's powers to quality assure and revoke, which is important, where necessary, self-classification decisions, but it expands the exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content. This is important because it will include films in languages other than English, being distributed through public libraries, that will 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. It will improve the efficiency of the classification system by removing the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified. There's some quirky thing in the legislation where that's currently not the case under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

The classification reform process will be a two-stage approach. This stage of the approach will prioritise the immediate first-stage improvements proposed in this bill, which are needed to help put the scheme on the right path forward. It will also enable government to work with key stakeholders to develop more comprehensive second-stage reforms to clarify the purpose and scope of the scheme, establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements, and ensure that classification criteria are aligned with and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations. Those community standards and expectations will evolve as we see cutting-edge technology produce more and more other ways that we can view our media and gaming.

Look at some of the games out there at the moment. The technology that's used is just incredible. I've got a few in my electorate that I've visited that are part of this gaming industry. Some of the content could be very docile—some of the sporting or gaming content that's available in the gaming industry where people are playing either football, soccer or cricket. It takes me back to thinking of what sort of sports we could play without actually playing the sport, and all I can remember is a board game called Test Match, which is a cricket game where you'd flick the players. That's how far we've come from these games to a whole new world of basically being able to play any game or activity you wish through one of these gaming products. So it's important that these are reviewed continuously to keep up with the new technology that's coming out.

When you think about it, we have come a long way in ensuring with this bill that we capture things that weren't captured in the past in previous bills. As I said, technology will be moving very, very fast, and I'm sure that this will not be the last bill that we'll see in years to come as technology moves. What we've got to ensure is that we're in front of technology, instead of leaving a 10-year gap, as we've seen, which hasn't covered many of the new games and the different ways that we view our media.

I commend this bill to the House. I'd hope that every member would be voting for it. It is a good bill, a bill that makes sense, and a bill that gives families and parents the opportunity to rely on classifications so that they can make informed decisions on what they view as a family or what their children are viewing—and that's always a scary point when you think about it. When I see my grandchildren on the computer or whatever, I always get this feeling of, 'What are they doing on there?' and wanting to look over their shoulder continuously.

I'll finish where I started. This legislation is all good. It is a basis and a framework which gives you some guidance. But the most important people are the parents and the family, who should continuously monitor what their children are seeing and what programs they're watching and always have that parental guidance there.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank all those in the chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I also thank members of the opposition for their support of this bill in the House. Australians rely on the National Classification Scheme to make informed choices about the content that they and those in their care watch, read and play, but reform of the scheme is long overdue. The government is committed to reforming the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose in today's online media environment.

This bill is part of the government's first stage of classification reforms. It expands options for industry to self-classify content with appropriate safeguards and oversight of these decisions by the Classification Board. It also extends exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content and removes the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified for broadcast television. These reforms will improve the capacity of the scheme to classify growing volumes of online content and make it easier for industry to comply with classification requirements. It also removes unnecessary duplication and introduces a 'classify once' principle for content that has already been classified for broadcast as a step towards harmonising media regulation for a converged media environment.

These amendments lay the foundation for the further modernisation of the scheme under the government's second stage of classification reforms. A broad-ranging consultation process will be undertaken in coming months to inform the direction of this work. Once again I thank my colleagues for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.