CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (CLASSIFICATION PROCESS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 April 2008. Page 2595.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:48): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to this bill and that, whilst I will not be opposing it—and I have no objection to raise to the bill—the only difficulty I have is that, because it was not on the list this week, it has not actually been through our party room. Whilst I do not expect it to encounter any particular difficulty, I reserve our position as a formality until this bill passes to the other house.

It is, I think, a relatively straightforward and uncontentious bill primarily directed, as the Attorney said, by the federal government because for some years now we have had a classification system which is overarched by a national system and our legislation in this state follows the federal legislation, as does the legislation in the other states and territories.

One of the prime things that this particular legislation does is to simplify the process for classification of DVDs. I think most of us in this chamber probably would be aware that now it is often not very long from when a film is distributed and shown in cinemas to when the film will be available on DVD or occasionally video, but more often DVD these days. One of the difficulties that has come about and this bill seeks to address is simply that, when people produce DVDs, they commonly add into the DVD a whole range of extras, things such as interviews with the actors—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Or the directors.

Mrs REDMOND: Or the directors, as the Attorney says, or information about how special effects were achieved, funny things that happened on the set—they have all sorts of things in these extras. They sometimes have deleted scenes, and that is probably the most important part because, until now, when you sought to release a DVD that had already been shown in the cinemas, the same film had to go back through the whole classification process and that obviously could slow things down and be quite burdensome administratively for very little effect.

Whilst it is still necessary to review these things to ensure that, for instance, deleted scenes do not contain material which would otherwise have changed the classification of the film, it is appropriate that we do not have to put the whole thing back through the same process. It is envisaged that a departmental officer, effectively, will review the DVD, particularly the new material, to ensure that the classification is appropriate. I do not know the details, but they will have to have special training, according to the second reading explanation. There will be a recommendation flowing from that, and that will considerably streamline and simplify the mechanism for the release of DVDs.

I do not get to the movies very often, but I noticed in the paper on the weekend an advertisement for a DVD of a film that I thought had only just hit the cinemas in the last couple of weeks, so I will be surprised at how quickly we are likely now to get DVDs if they are going through an even more streamlined process. That is one of the key provisions of this bill.

As I said, it is essentially to bring it in line with what the commonwealth has already done; that whole new process is actually a commonwealth process. There was a report done, I think, for the statutory authorities by John Uhrig, and his report led to the amendments which were passed by the commonwealth. One of the other key aspects of that was that they wanted to reinforce the independence from each other of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. They are two separate entities with two separate functions, but the report of John Uhrig indicated that there was some confusion as to the separateness of those, so the intention of the amendments is to make it clear that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are quite separate.

The South Australian act, as I said, is really a tool of the enforcement of the overall commonwealth legislation (so the South Australian act is primarily directed towards offence and enforcement issues), but the bill does provide some scope for organisations approved by the minister to make an application for the exemption from classification of a specific film at a specific event.

I always think that the Attorney-General, who likes to talk about people having two bob each way, likes to have two bob each way on these issues of censorship. He was somewhat gleeful, in fact, in introducing this legislation. In his second reading explanation, he referred to the fact that it is really to do with censorship and that he had had some success in having his SCAG (Standing Committee of Attorneys-General) colleagues finally adopt the term 'censorship'. On the one hand, he wants to appear to the world at large as though he is some sort of champion of the anti-censorship lobby—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Me?

Mrs REDMOND: —but on the other hand—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, no; I'm a censor.

Mrs REDMOND: —he wants to bring in things and ensure that they are truly censored. The Attorney yells at me from the other side of the chamber, 'No, no; I'm a censor.' At least we have him saying clearly on the record that he is always in favour of censorship. I think I had another quote somewhere that would be pertinent to that particular comment, but I will not delay the house by finding it now.

As I was saying, the South Australian act is primarily directed to offence and enforcement issues, but this bill does provide some scope for organisations approved by the minister to make an application for exemption from classification of a specific film at a specific event. We already have that applying not only to the commonwealth but also to Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and this will bring our state into line with those states.

On the one hand, I think that there is considerable merit in that because one can imagine, for instance, a film festival at which a film which might otherwise not be released for general public entertainment might be given a special exemption for showing in particular circumstances for a particular event. So, I welcome that.

I am a little puzzled and I would like some explanation from the Attorney, if possible, about the fact that, as I understand it, this exemption now applies in the other states—that is, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—to all computer games. I am a little hesitant about that provision. I do not play computers games—never have, never will—but from the little I know of computer games, whilst many of them are harmless (indeed, I would say mindless), nevertheless there seem to be some computer games that are so graphic in their violence or sexual content that I am curious as to whether the intention is that computer games per se, by virtue of being computer games, are to be given the exemption contemplated by this South Australian legislation. Alternatively, if we became aware of a particular computer game which had graphic and possibly realistic animations involving dreadful acts which would otherwise be classified as not even deserving of an R classification but beyond anything that the Attorney was prepared to classify, would there be an ability not to exempt a particular game?

If the intention is to exempt computer games per se, will there remain an ability to exempt a computer game if there is a view that a particular game is such that, were it filmed for public viewing, it would be objectionable? Is the reasoning that it is not the public viewing which is problematic but rather the content itself and the impact that that content is likely to have on any viewer of that game? Perhaps the Attorney could address that issue in his response.

We are not proposing any amendments to the bill. As I said, at this stage, on the basis of the government's advice that this bill was not coming on this week and given that we had other matters to deal with in the joint party room, I did not list it on our joint party room papers for this week, although it had been through our legal affairs portfolio committee and it is largely a technical event bringing us into line with legislation which we have already adopted in this state. I do have that question about the issue of computer games and would appreciate the Attorney's response in his summation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Attorney and point out that if he speaks he closes the debate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:00): The member for Heysen drew attention to proposed section 79A, and it reads:

The minister...may...approve an organisation for the purposes of section 77(3)—

that is, for an exemption—

if the organisation carries on activities of an educational, cultural or artistic nature.

There are considerations to take into account. There are conditions. If the conditions are breached, if the organisation acquires a different reputation by events, then I as the minister can revoke its exemption. I hope that deals with the member for Heysen's question, and I thank the House of Assembly Liberal Party for dealing with this matter at such short notice.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (16:02): I wish to seek a little more clarification. The second reading explanation says about section 77:

The bill amends section 77 of the South Australian act to extend its application to computer games in line with other states in the commonwealth classification legislation.

It goes on to say:

The same tests that apply to the decision to approve an organisation for the grant of an exemption from classification of a film will apply in the case of a computer game.

Can the Attorney clarify whether that means that, indeed, all computer games will be individually considered, subject to an application for exemption? I want to be clear about what the circumstances will be with regard to computer games which may be made in South Australia, created elsewhere and brought into this state, or created overseas and brought into the country and then into this state. I want to be clear about what the classification process will be for computer games, and I have deliberately chosen not to go into committee because I have no amendment to offer and no suggestion. I am just trying to clarify the record so that when this bill reaches the other place we will know the answer to that aspect and hopefully be able to move it forward.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:05): The idea is that an organisation will have a reputation as being trustworthy. The organisation will have a reputation as being a genuinely educational, cultural or artistic organisation and, if it chooses—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have pointed out that if the Attorney speaks he closes the debate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it had better be a good answer. If the organisation screens a film or uses a computer game, then I can exempt it from the classification process, and I do so because I can trust that organisation to abide by the classification rules without forcing it to take all its films and computer games through the classification process. I would not be able to do that for most—indeed, any—commercial organisations, because so many commercial organisations will flout the classification rules to make a quid.

Mrs Redmond: They might flaunt them, as is so often the case.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. We are against flaunting, especially in this area. But some non-profit organisations of an educational, cultural or artistic nature can be relied upon to abide by the classification rules. For instance, one of the jobs that I have—usually each day of the working week—as Attorney-General is to—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, not watch R-rated videos. Thank you for the nice thought, but, no. My job is to receive applications from educational, cultural and artistic organisations wanting to screen a foreign film or cartoon, which has not yet been classified in Australia. They sign a statutory declaration in which they say that they are aware of the classification rules and that the film or cartoon they wish to screen in South Australia is not higher than a particular classification. They so swear and sign it, and I accept their assessment. However, often I will ask them to include a summary of the plot, a description of the film or cartoon and the audience to whom it will be screened.

Sometimes I will know those organisations well. For instance, there is a man in Adelaide who screens films in Telegu and the Tamil languages from India, and I know that, as Attorney-General and from six years' experience, if a film is produced in the Telegu or Tamil languages it will not flout our classification rules. Indeed, it will not even be MA15+. It will be produced in accordance with the norms of our parents and grandparents, and therefore it is a film that can be screened at the Mercury Cinema without my having to sit down and watch it. But, of course, when I am criticised by Katrina Sedgwick, Margaret Pomeranz and others for asking the Classification Review Board to consider the classification board's classification of a film, they say, 'Oh, why didn't the Attorney-General look at the film himself?'

Well, of course, if I did that, what would they say, member for Heysen? The next thing they would say is, 'Made you look you dirty chook!' That is what they would say. So, I do not watch these films. I rely on the statutory declaration of the promoter, and, after this bill is passed, I will rely on the good reputation of the educational, cultural or artistic organisation. If they cheat on the rules, they will no longer be exempt. I hope that has answered the member for Heysen's question, because, if it has not, she does not have another go.

Bill read a third timed and passed.