Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2019.)

Mr PICTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (17:11): I rise to speak on the rather lengthily titled Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill of 2019. I indicate that I am the lead speaker in my capacity as the shadow minister for arts.

This is a bill that has two main purposes: firstly, to dismantle the South Australia-specific classification system, which was established in 1995 when a national system was established at the commonwealth level. That effectively means the disbanding of the SA Classification Council, as well as the removal of specific decision-making powers for our state's Attorney-General in relation to classification. Secondly, the bill repeals legislation governing the classification of theatre performances and removes the ability to classify or restrict theatre performances, at least at a state level.

I indicate that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be supporting this bill. I am awaiting some replies from my own consultation efforts, but at this stage no amendments are envisaged. However, of course there is little point in doing consultation if you are not going to listen to it. So, if there is feedback that indicates that amendments are necessary, then there is a possibility that we may do that in the other place. However, at this stage Labor is supporting the bill without amendment.

The bill does mark the end of an era when it comes to classification, an era presided over by both Labor and Liberal attorneys-general who have taken responsibility for matters of classification. The bill, if passed as is, will see South Australia come into line with the national classification system and will remove the independence that SA has had until now when it comes to classification. It essentially removes South Australia's right to go it alone or act first on classification decisions, and there is a history of doing that in this state.

I would like to make mention of those who came before, especially those who put a great deal of effort into matters of classification both under the South Australian scheme and utilising the provisions of the commonwealth act and schemes. On the Labor side, the Hon. Michael Atkinson was nearly synonymous with classification at a national level, especially in relation to the debate over violent video games. I was very lucky, I think, that I had the privilege of working for the then attorney-general, including on classification matters, but of course that was many moons ago now.

No matter what your view is on classification, attorney-general Atkinson undoubtedly did a pretty gutsy job, vehemently advocating for what he viewed as the need to protect young people and vulnerable people from some pretty graphic and disturbing images that were at the time entering into the emerging area of video game development. This included video games that showed sexual abuse and graphic murders, often in first-person shooter-style gaming. There was, of course, a long-running debate about the introduction of an R18+ classification for games at the time.

I recall that at one stage the then member for Croydon was receiving death threats, including a threatening note under the door of his home. That was the home that he shared with his wife and his young children. Of course, that must have been pretty frightening. Considering there was also a fervent debate at the time about outlaw motorcycle gangs, I remember him remarking that he was more concerned at the threats from gamers than he was of the criminal bikies. I think that gives some indication—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: He claimed one of them didn't even exist and he ended up living in his electorate.

Ms STINSON: That might have to be a conversation for later that you can fill me in on, Attorney. I think that gives an indication of just how passionate and highly emotive the debate was at the time around gaming and some of the material that was being produced at the time. No matter your view, it did take some stamina to withstand the criticism that he did endure in accordance with what I think were his strongly held principles and what he thought was a responsible public policy, and I think he should be recognised for that.

After Mick Atkinson, and interspersed for a brief period by Paul Holloway, there was then John Rau. Of course, he is also a fine chief law officer of the state. The then deputy premier John Rau was the last minister to recommend the banning of a film. That film was A Serbian Film. A Serbian Film was a 2010 production described as 'exploitation horror'. It told the story of a financially struggling porn star who agreed to participate in an art film, only to discover that he had been drafted into a snuff film with some paedophilic and necrophilic themes. I think we can see already why people were maybe a bit disgusted by that one.

South Australia was the first to move to ban that film, and that was just days ahead of its release date. That decision was later echoed by the federal scheme. It is worth mentioning that because, even though the SA-based classification scheme is being dismantled through the bill, the scheme has certainly served a purpose over time. The SA-specific scheme was not actually established under Labor, as many might think due to our rather outspoken attorneys-general of the past, but it was established under Trevor Griffin in 1995.

It was established just as the national scheme came into force. I am not entirely sure what the reasons were for a separate scheme. The Attorney might know more of what happened in that period, but I can only guess that, because we had a Labor federal attorney-general and a Liberal state government, maybe there was some consternation or concern that maybe different people might come to different considerations as far as classification goes. I will either continue researching or take the Attorney's good counsel on the history of why that came about.

In any case, it was under Trevor Griffin that the two theatre productions were banned in the mid-nineties under the Classification of Theatrical Performances Act 1978, and that will be repealed under this bill as well. As far as I am aware, they were the only two performances that were banned under that legislation. So it actually took 17 years from when that legislation was put in place to a ban coming about.

There were restrictions that were also applied to other performances during that time. The two that were banned have some pretty interesting names; in fact, I am not sure I can say them. Annie Sprinkle, who some people might be familiar with, had Post Porn Modernist, which was a performance in 1996—I am sure that was a thrill. Then there was Shopping and F**king of 1997. I am not sure if Trevor Griffin was still in in 1997. Those were two very interesting titles. I am sure even more interesting content was involved in them. They were banned outright, but then there were others that were restricted.

Even though I think that the council and the various ministers have certainly exercised and used this legislation, and it has been put to some good use over the years, on this side of the parliament we are not opposed to a change to the national system at this stage. It is worth recognising that this repeal and amendment does, of course, take decision-making out of the Attorney's hands. So let's hope there is not something wildly offensive that comes into this state that the Attorney would like to see banned and could be at odds with the federal minister over that. In such a circumstance, the Attorney would have deprived herself or future attorneys of the ability to intervene.

We do have a fairly robust national scheme, which has been operating for many years now. I am pretty sure it is every other state that has signed up to that, so we certainly would not be in any worse position than every other state and territory that has been operating under that scheme for some time. Labor had, in fact, looked at the Classification Council and the theatre council and their roles in the review of government boards and committees in 2015. That resulted in those two boards being combined into one.

Before I wrap up, I might just add that, despite the fact that this repeal and this amendment look set to go through the parliament, I think that issues of classification are still of great relevance to people. Certainly, people raise matters with me in terms of social media and online content and apps. Probably the classification debate has now moved on to those forums and what might be suitable, particularly for children. That goes to matters of violent or sexual content and also areas like gaming and gambling and the exposure of children to those themes, and not just children but more vulnerable members of our community as well.

Although South Australia may be moving to a federal classification scheme, I do not think that that really indicates any lessening of the relevance of classification matters or, indeed, any reduction in concern from the community to make sure that suitable content is available and that unsuitable, offensive or damaging content is not available to people in our community.

I would like to wrap up by thanking the members of the most recent Classification Council. I understand that their terms ended in November last year and they were not replaced. Our thanks go to Julie Redman, the chair; Michael Dawson, who has a wealth of knowledge and is someone I respect greatly; Anthony Durkin, Barbara Biggins, George Karzis and Ester Huxtable. Our thanks to the registrar, Wilhelmina Chapman of the Attorney-General's Department.

They have served ably, as I am sure many have before them, on the Classification Council and the theatre council as well and we thank them for their efforts and their contribution to classification decisions in this state. Finally, my thanks to the Attorney-General's staff and the staff of her department for briefing me on the bill. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:22): I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill 2019, which abolishes the South Australian Classification Council and repeals the Classification of Theatrical Performances Act 1978.

For the sake of completeness for my constituents, who no doubt are watching the broadcast or potentially reading Hansard—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms Stinson: They're glued to it.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There are a number, I promise you. They write emails and I enjoy reading them. They may or may not be constituents of mine, but certainly a number of people do find this riveting. The context of the bill is interesting in more than just what it does in itself. Other members have explained the purpose of the bill.

We have a national body that does this work of classifying materials. That national body is established, it is funded, it is set up, it is appropriate to do that work and it has the expertise required. I think the member for Badcoe added to the comments of the Attorney-General in introducing the bill, about some of the technical nature of that work and the challenges put on that work by the way society has moved. Computer games are added to the sheer volume of films seeking classification, with South Australia and the Northern Territory being the only jurisdictions to maintain these bodies. In South Australia's case, it has not met in some time. It is more than five years. But the legislation remains: no material being classified since 2011.

The context of this comes from me as a new member of parliament coming into the parliament during 2010 when the then attorney-general had such an interest in this matter that he provoked the establishment of a political party named after his seat: Gamers 4 Croydon. It was not just about classification issues, but this legislation was a key part of the work that they did. The former attorney, for whom the member for Badcoe worked, which I did not realise, and it must have been an interesting time—

Ms Stinson: Educational.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Well, we all seek to take lessons where they come, and there were many lessons that all of us in the chamber took from the former attorney-general when he was the Speaker of this house. I reflect on the disappointment he must feel in his former staff member, the member for Badcoe, and the disappointment that he must feel for the Labor Party, as the Labor Party has now very sensibly indicated its support for this legislation.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Well, I suspect the former attorney-general is currently watching the broadcast right now. We will see whether he tweets his angst and concern. He will be glued. I know that he follows the member for Badcoe's Twitter account, and I am sure that he will be engaged in the debate deeply, spiritually, from wherever he is sitting right now. He will be very, very upset.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: He will be very upset. The fact is that during the 2010 election campaign, as a candidate in a Labor seat, this was not the first thing people raised when we were knocking on doors, but it occupied the minds of many people in the political framework because the former attorney-general, God bless him, was very interested in this.

Some of us imagined the idea of his retaining the power that no other attorney-general around South Australia or up in the Northern Territory had to be able to—go through and watch every one of these videos as they were coming in, as people were submitting for the State of South Australia to allow the viewing of certain materials. We wondered whether there was an establishment within the Attorney-General's office—a war room, if you like. Some staffer had to do it; poor member for Badcoe, I do feel for you.

We could not work out quite why this was. The former attorney-general Mr Atkinson ran a strong line in rhetoric about the protections that he was providing for the people of South Australia through his service in this way. We feel as a government, and I felt then, very pleased to be acting on what is a small piece of legislation, but I think it stands for a lot. It is a sensible piece of legislation. We feel that the former attorney-general's service, as he saw it, to the people of South Australia, would potentially be better replicated by the professionals at the federal body who are undertaking this work. He had a different view, and there it is.

We enjoyed his time in the chamber. Things changed without him. He was a very strict Speaker, I might say. He was a Speaker who did not stand for any guff. He was a Speaker who would regularly express his concerns with the interjections that I would make and discipline me accordingly. We wish him well, but one of his legacy initiatives—the retention of this legislation in the South Australian statute—from the sounds of it by the end of this year may well be no more.

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There no doubt are some other legacies to go; he will not be forgotten. His legacy in what he has established in the South Australian parliament through precedent is valued in many cases.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The right wing of the Labor Party—well, the only way is down sometimes. The member for Croydon, as he was, has been replaced by another member for Croydon who has no longer taken up the cudgels on behalf of the right of the South Australian Classification Council.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am reflecting on the memories of the joyous time when the member for Croydon was synonymous, through not only the representations in the parliament but the effect of creating their own political party, with the Classification Council. I think that merits a moment of reflection. Having reflected on that, I am very grateful for that opportunity and I commend the bill to the house.