Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very important that people understand the concerns surrounding the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 that have been brought to us by a number of groups, including the ACL. There are concerns that we are starting to move towards self-regulation of the industry and, in so doing, are opening up potential loopholes for people who have the capacity to put themselves in positions in relation to classifications that may not reflect the true aspirations of the community.

There are strong concerns held about this area, and I think that as we go forward we need to make sure that we keep in contact especially with families who have seen the problems that can occur when there is endorsement by the public of a certain classification and the issues that can arise for certain members of the community who can be affected. We are affected by what we see and what we hear, and we see classifications as an endorsement of a community’s view about how they see a certain issue. We also note that the views and self-assessment of someone who has a vested interest in getting a media product such as a publication, a film or a computer game out into the public may not be the same as the community’s views when that product actually arrives out in the public. So what is going to be a mechanism that will truly take it back to a reflection of the family’s view of how these things should be classified?

This bill increases the exposure of minors to violent and graphic adult material in the interests of advertising and industry profiteering. The safeguards to the bill include industry assurances that organisations will act responsibly and in compliance with the scheme; however, there is a question about the validity of these assurances should profits ever be threatened. Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to the current advertising arrangements. The current prohibitions are considered to unduly restrict advertising because, due to the risk of piracy, products are held back from classification until very close to their release date. The intention is to create a regime under which the likely classification of a product is assessed in advance for the purposes of advertising. Exposure to the advertising will be restricted to the appropriate classification level. However, we have always got the issue of the juxtaposition between what the market deems appropriate and what the community believes is appropriate to maintain some structure and control over what their families—especially children—are exposed to. This is why, especially in today’s arena, we possibly need to be a little bit more vigilant about this bill.

The growth of the computer games industry is driven by technological advances. However, the proposed scheme can be reviewed only in three years time. This is not in line with the speed of technology and leaves a question as to the speed at which schemes will date. The American Psychological Association has concluded that scientific evidence shows a cause-and-effect relationship between television and computer game violence and aggression in children. Children are more likely to affiliate with and imitate the actions of the character with whom they identify: in computer games this is often the shooter, the wielder of weapons or the driver of out-of-control vehicles. This indicates a requirement for strict regulations to ensure that materials of a violent nature are not viewed by minors or inappropriate audiences.

Research also indicates that exposure to violent computer games increases aggressive thoughts, emotions and actions amongst children. That comes from a study by Anderson and Bushman, Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. The quality of graphics is such that the violence depicted in some computer games matches the quality of that seen in movies. This makes it very hard for children to differentiate between fact and fiction. We are affected by what we see; we are affected by what we hear.

In 2006, sales of computer and video game hardware and software in Australia exceeded $1 billion. Australians purchase 12.5 million computer and video games each year. A survey of popular Sega and Nintendo games taken a few years ago found that 80 per cent of them primarily featured violence or aggression. According to Bushman and Huesmann of the University of Michigan, the effect of media violence on aggressive behaviours is nearly as great as the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

The University of Michigan study also reports that playing violent video games actually changes brain function. Chronic players are desensitised to real life violence. Desensitising reduces emotional responses to repeated stimulus. We have seen this in our own country, especially in the intervention, and that is why we try to get unrated and X-rated material away from children. We do not want these children desensitised. We know that it is a form of reprogramming of those children. There is nothing more insidious, I feel, than to see four- and five-year-old kids being open to pornography that—to be brutally honest—might involve animals and a whole range of things.

We have to always be aware of what this does to a child’s brain, regardless of the colour of their skin, and the desensitising effects that forms of media can be responsible for. We have to try to always make sure that we have got unaffected kids and quiet streets. The ways to deliver that are not just through security but also through the formation of the child, the formation of the person. What children see through their surroundings as the norm is important, but what is more important is what they see endorsed by the community as the norm. If they are not receiving those meters, mechanisms and indicators from their immediate family then at least the community should endorse what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

I believe strongly that self-regulation is a move away from that. We should not allow that. We should be making sure we have a clear mechanism that provides our nation with the community values that we hold. This should not be done through a self-regulating body, which has an inherent self-interest in making sure that what makes them money gets out in the community rather than what is appropriate.

I know that there is a belief that this bill is non-controversial. Distributors have a good idea what the classification will be and do not provide advance copies of the work to avoid piracy issues. I understand the issues around this. This bill is not going to create a lot of interest today—I note that there are only three speakers on it.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are five.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection—five. This legislation is something that I think we should give a little more attention to prior to it going forward.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 is taking place during a time when it is possible to have divisions or move amendments. We are not in a non-controversial period of the session. So if fellow senators do have objections or suggestions for changing the legislation before us, they can do so, regardless of the level of interest to date or, indeed, even the number of people on the speakers list. I might add—for Senator Joyce—that I thought it was three as well, but it has just grown in the last few moments. At any given time in this place—and I put this on record—there are usually only three or four speakers on a piece of legislation, sometimes not even that. Given it is our last week here as Australian Democrats, I note that nearly every bill in this place sees a Democrat speaker to that legislation, regardless of whether it is controversial or not.

In this case, the government will be pleased to see that the Democrats are supporting the legislation before us. In many respects, it is a pretty mechanical sort of bill, for lack of a better description. I rise again for the penultimate contribution—or maybe the third to last time—as the Australian Democrats Attorney-General spokesperson to speak to this bill.

This bill implements a number of amendments to the National Classification Scheme, some directly and some via the development of separate legislative instruments. I acknowledge there has been, among some of us in this place, a concern about the increase in delegated legislation for some time. I suspect that might be something for those with concerns, particularly for the speaker before me, that disallowable instruments can be disallowed. If there is concern with delegated legislation that may flow from such legislation, there are opportunities in the Senate to tackle those issues.

Complimentary state and territory legislation currently prohibits the advertising of films and computer games before they are classified. However, exemptions can be granted by the Classification Board to allow for advertising prior to classification for public exhibition films. We have probably all seen this in practice when an advertisement for a major cinema release is accompanied by that familiar disclaimer stating: ‘This film has advertising approval. Check the classification closer to the release date.’ However, exemptions are not available for other films, including DVDs, videos, compilations of TV series, or computer games. In practice this means that new DVDs or games that are yet to be released in Australia cannot be advertised. This clearly creates an inequality between major cinema release films and other products.

Schedule 1 of the bill rectifies this inequality. It provides for a new legislative instrument that allows for the creation of a new advertising scheme for unclassified films and computer games. An industry self-assessment scheme will be created whereby trained and authorised assessors are able to make an assessment of the likely classification of a film or computer game for the purpose of advertising that film or computer game before it has been classified.

Oversight of decisions by authorised assessors will be provided by the Classification Board as a safeguard. Authorised assessors may be barred from using the scheme by the Director of the Classification Board if the scheme is being abused. In addition, unclassified films and computer games will only be advertised with classified films or computer games of the same or higher level—for example, trailers on DVDs, and trailers or demos on computer games, which means that likely PG films are only to be advertised with films classified with a PG or higher rating et cetera. I think—and the Democrats believe—this is an important safeguard to ensure that people are not inadvertently exposed to potentially offensive material. We take on board Senator Joyce’s concerns in that regard.

Schedule 2 of the bill will enable the establishment of a scheme for the classification of films that are episodes of a television series. A trained and authorised person will be able to provide a report and a recommendation to the Classification Board to assist them in their classification of a box set of episodes of a television series. The Classification Board will retain responsibility for classifying the film. So, again, the Classification Board essentially reigns supreme.

Schedule 2 is designed to streamline and reduce the cost to industry of the classification scheme as it relates to TV series. It will also introduce a new requirement that at least one of the episodes in a series box set has been broadcast in Australia in recognition of the fact that many series produced and broadcast overseas will never be broadcast in full in Australia. This will allow producers and distributors to obtain a classification while the series is being broadcast so that it can be released for sale during or at the end of the season.

The idea is that the cumbersome nature of the existing classification scheme will not prevent producers and distributors from advertising and selling their products, thereby preventing them from being beaten to the punch by internet downloads and illegal piracy activities. The Democrats understand that these reforms are generated by industry concerns that the classification scheme is cumbersome, costly and does not keep up with technological developments that allow virtually instant access to films and games when they are released. As such, we will support the amendments.

However, the Democrats recognise that there is a risk that a move towards greater industry self-regulation when it comes to classification could undermine the integrity of the classification scheme if important safeguards are not maintained. We think that today this bill strikes an appropriate balance between creating a more streamlined and user-friendly classification system and maintaining high standards for classification.

In relation to advertisements for unclassified films, the Director of the Classification Board can call in any advertisement that has been inappropriately assessed, and disciplinary action can be taken against assessors. In relation to TV series, the board will retain ultimate responsibility for classification but will be informed by industry assessments. However, given that the bill leaves a significant amount of detail to be provided via legislative instrument—to which I referred in my opening remarks—I think it is important that the parliament keeps a close eye on, and a close interest in, further developments in this area, including, if need be, by disallowing any regulations which are not up to scratch.

Just on that parting note, as I have said during my time in this place and over the years that I have watched the parliament, there has been an increase—I think, Acting Deputy President Watson you are smiling knowingly; I am not sure—in the amount of delegated legislation that comes here. That is all right provided there are some accountability provisions through the parliament—that is, you can disallow—but I think there is a very strong argument for some things, which are almost shunted off to a disallowance framework or delegated legislation, to be enshrined in legislation: in the specifics of bills with which we deal. But today the Democrats will be supporting the legislation before us.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 is, in substance, a legacy bill and it has the support of the opposition. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007 was introduced into the 41st parliament on 22 March 2007. The 2007 bill was referred to the Main Committee for the second reading debate and returned to the House of Representatives without amendment on 9 August 2007. The bill had not been passed, and lapsed when the parliament was prorogued in October 2007. The bill before the chamber has been introduced in the same form as the 2007 bill with one minor drafting change in schedule 2.

Senator Joyce raised a concern about the degree of scrutiny which had been given to this bill. Might I reassure Senator Joyce that the predecessor bill, which in all material respects this bill is identical to, received very close scrutiny by the former Attorney-General, the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, and by the coalition’s policy committee and party-room processes—hence the decision of the opposition to support the bill, as you would expect given it was germinated by the previous government.

The bill replaces the prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games with a new scheme to allow advertising, subject to conditions, and amends the classification procedures for compilations of episodes of a television series, subject to conditions. Both of those reforms were generated in discussion with the industry. The bill aims to streamline the classification process and reduce the regulatory burden on industry. Like Senator Stott Despoja, the opposition believes that the bill strikes an appropriate balance between self-regulation and necessary safeguards.

Schedule 1 of the bill amends the definition of advertisement to clarify that it includes advertising on the internet and excludes product merchandising and clothing products. Additionally, schedule 1 deals with the current prohibition that is considered to unduly restrict advertising because, due to the risk of piracy, products are held back from classification until very close to their release date. The intention is to create a regime under which the likely classification of a product is assessed in advance for the purposes of advertising. Schedule 1 will also amend the act to ensure that unclassified films and computer games are advertised with classified films or computer games of the same or higher level of classification. This amendment also reinforces the existing policy that the Classification Board must not approve an advertisement for a film or computer game that is or is likely to be classified RC, or ‘refused classification’.

Proposed subsection 31(1) is the key provision. It enables the Attorney-General to make a legislative instrument that determines the conditions for advertising unclassified films and computer games and provides for an industry self-assessment scheme of the likely classification of unclassified films and computer games. The section is notably broad in scope. The amendments in section 2 which relate to films of television series are intended to streamline the classification process for boxed compilations of episodes of television series.

I hear and share the observations of both Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Joyce about the importance of ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards where, particularly in this area of policy, legislative reform moves in the direction of self-regulation. The former government was satisfied—and I note the new government is satisfied—that the appropriate safeguards have been incorporated into the legislation and a proper balance has been struck.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 has a couple of aims, which are to allow advertising of unclassified films and computer games and to allow the industry more influence in the classification of boxed sets of DVDs of programs broadcast on television. Family First is concerned that some of the changes in the bill seem to undermine the involvement of the Classification Board in what otherwise would be its day-to-day work. That is why Family First took this legislation out of non-controversial into controversial—to ensure that there was greater scrutiny of this bill going forward. It was Family First who brought it out of the non-controversial into controversial.

Family First is not aware of any public debate on increasing the industry’s involvement in classification. But Family First is concerned about the effectiveness of industry self-regulation in areas likes this where there is a commercial incentive to push the regulatory boundaries. Television classifiers are always under pressure to squeeze the programs they have into a commercially advantageous timeslot. It would not help a television network to have spent big money on a television series but not be able to maximise its viewers because the rating given to the program forced it into a later timeslot. That is just commercial reality.

Last year, the policy function of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, OFLC, was merged into the Attorney-General’s Department, and the Classification Board is now confined to classification work. Family First has had concerns in the past about some of the work by the OFLC and it is hopeful that an office in the Attorney-General’s Department might be more accountable to the public through the minister than the old system. But Family First does not want to move from a system that is accountable to the public to a system of increasing industry self-regulation, which is less accountable to the public. As far as Family First is aware, there is no resource problem with the Classification Board being able to do its work of being an independent classifier of films and computer games. Family First would be concerned if this were part of a move to shift more and more responsibility to the industry in a bid to marginalise or get rid of the Classification Board over time.

The bill makes changes to the current system for advertising films. It formalises a system whereby the industry assesses the classification of films so they can advertise well in advance of formal classification by the Classification Board. The industry has a quota of films where that can happen, but this bill opens the system up completely. Family First is concerned about the advertising of yet-to-be-classified films—that is, films that have not been classified, on the grounds that, when the industry determines a preliminary film classification and gets it wrong and the content of the trailer is inappropriate, children can be confronted by an ad classified at a higher classification than the film they actually came to see.

There was a move under the coalition government last year to loosen regulation on the film industry’s advertising of yet-to-be-classified films. I understand the industry was concerned that the final cut of films was often not received until late, which made it difficult to get films classified fast enough to advertise them. It was argued that the industry knew the content of the films better, so they could make an advance assessment of the likely film classification. But allowing industry a free hand on this does risk cinema audiences seeing, for example, violence at a higher level than the film will eventually be classified at. In the case that classification is inaccurate, it could involve exposing children to violent material.

The bill also makes changes to how boxed DVD sets are classified. Family First does not agree with the legislation allowing industry classifiers to recommend the classification of boxed sets of TV programs on DVD. There have been a number of examples of how the industry and the classification body are in disagreement on the appropriate classification for particular films. For example, some cartoon series, like Transformers or Power Rangers, have been broadcast on TV as G-rated but when sold on DVD the Office of Film and Literature Classification classified them as PG. The Line of Beauty TV series was screened on TV as an M-rated program but when it was classified by the Classification Board it was given a rating of MA15+ for the box set. It was the same story for Robin Hood, which was screened on ABC-TV as PG but sold on DVD as an M-rated box set. The series The War was screened on television on Sunday afternoons as PG but classified by the board as M for a box set. This is despite the TV and DVD versions not differing significantly.

If passed, this bill would give extra weight to recommendations made by the industry classifiers which may well be based on the classification used by the TV network that screened the program. Family First is not anti-industry but recognises that the industry has different motives from the government regulator’s. Industry classifiers are under pressure to classify programs so that they fit into the broadcast times that their employer wants. There will always be the temptation to stretch the boundaries. The Classification Board has expertise and resources independent of such pressures. On a positive note, it is a good and positive step that the legislation will stop the advertising of PG films with G-rated films. There has been some concern about the trailers, sometimes screened as advertising during kids’ films, which have contained material inappropriate for children.

Family First will be moving amendments in the committee stage to make sure that the classification system is not further undermined by allowing unclassified films to be advertised. Family First will also move an amendment to stop giving the industry greater role in the classification of box sets and TV programs when they go to DVD.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 will streamline the classification process for, as we have heard, TV box sets, film and computer games and reduce a regulatory burden on the industry. The policy initiatives contained in this bill will benefit industry while continuing to protect the interests of consumers. Senator Fielding and Senator Joyce in particular should note that this bill does continue to protect the interests of consumers. The bill includes a raft of safeguards and sanctions to protect the integrity of the National Classification Scheme. Australian families can continue to rely on classification information to make informed entertainment choices for themselves and for those for whom they care.

I thank the various senators who have made a contribution to this debate today and concur with both Senator Brandis and Senator Stott Despoja that this bill has had considerable scrutiny and discussion in the Liberal Party and National Party party rooms, and also considerable consultation with industry, so I think it was a little naughty for Senator Joyce to suggest that there was not enough scrutiny of this bill. Senator Joyce expressed some concern about the impact of new media on children and on families. Senator Joyce and I are probably about the same age and in our home when I turned 13 there was black-and-white television. Things have changed considerably in that time. We have had to deal with enormous changes and to manage a classification system that continues to protect our children and ourselves from inappropriate and unwanted media. As Senator Brandis said, this bill does in fact find that line between protection of children in particular and facilitating an important industry that is operational in Australia. I do believe that Senator Joyce’s concerns are heartfelt, but we need to ensure that fear of new media does not overcome the need to protect our children.

I thank Senator Stott Despoja for her reasoned contribution and support for this legislation and I take this opportunity to acknowledge her work in this area over many, many years. I also thank Senator Brandis for the history of the passage of this legislation, both in the previous parliament and in this parliament. I think that that reinforces the level of scrutiny that the bill has had.

I note that Senator Fielding is intending to move some amendments, which we have just received, during this debate. We will address the contents of those amendments during the committee stage. Senator Fielding talked about the treatment of compilation box sets compared to how they are treated in a classification sense on television. The assessment of content for direct television broadcast does not translate directly to a classification under the Classification Act. Content of all television series is assessed before being broadcast under the television codes of practice. The TV codes of practice do not pick up the full scope of the principles contained in the Classification Act, the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines. Classification criteria for content under television codes of practice are similar but not identical to the National Classification Scheme. I hope that answers the question that you asked.

The classification of a television program received for broadcast will not be a factor in determining the appropriate classification for a box set of episodes of a television series under the new television series assessment scheme. Under the television series assessment scheme, industry assessors will make a recommendation based on the presence of any of the six classifiable elements and the impact of each of the classifiable elements. The six classifiable elements are: themes, sex, language, nudity, violence and drug use. Under the television series assessment scheme, the final decision will remain with the Classification Board. I hope that addresses some of the concerns that Senator Fielding raised.

The bill contains the first package of reforms that will allow films and computer games to be advertised before they are classified, subject to conditions. The new advertising scheme responds to industry concerns that the current advertising framework for unclassified materials is cumbersome and outdated. The increased risk of piracy and rapid advances in technology have led to products only being available for classification very close to their release date. The current system therefore causes difficulties for the marketing of films and computer games. It is no longer viable to prohibit the advertising of unclassified material but provide exemptions for some cinema release films. It is more equitable to permit cinema release and DVD or video films and computer games to be advertised on an equal footing in advance of classification, provided certain conditions are met.

The bill will also put in place a new scheme for compilations of episodes of a television series that has been broadcast in Australia. The purpose of these amendments is to reduce the cost to industry and the processing time for the Classification Board when television series are released for sale or hire.

The television series scheme has been designed to ensure that improvements in efficiency and the reduction of costs do not occur at the expense of consumer confidence in classification processes. The bulk of the advertising and television series self-assessment schemes will be contained in legislative instruments to be made by the Minister for Home Affairs, following consultation with state and territory censorship ministers. This will ensure that these aspects of the National Classification Scheme can remain flexible and responsive. This bill was developed in response to issues raised by industry, while continuing to ensure the integrity of the National Classification Scheme. It makes sensible changes to classification practices, in recognition of the rapidly changing technological environment of entertainment media.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.