Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:32): I am just looking around in case anyone else was inspired to make a contribution on this bill. I thank the member for Badcoe for her indication of support of this bill. There are a couple of matters that have been raised, and I indicate that I share with the member for Badcoe some of the concerns raised in respect of online matters.

In this context, it not so much in the envelope relating to the difficulties the former attorney-general had in relation to the members of the Gamers 4 Croydon political party and the mischief they all got up to. From memory, I think one of them was claimed by the former attorney-general to not exist. On the front page of the paper the next day, it was disclosed that this person did exist and that he was not just an anonymous troll on the attorney but was a real person and in fact lived in his electorate, so that was an interesting time.

It is important to note that we are living in the online world. I remind members of the eSafety Commissioner, which is a national commission which provides a number of services to Australians who, of course, are online and need to have support and advice on how to deal with a number of things. Image-based abuse is common, where intimate images or videos are being shared without consent. There is also cyber bullying, which people obviously understand and want to combat and the harm it causes, and even adult cyber abuse, dealing with threatening, intimidating, or harassing or humiliating online behaviour, and illegal and harmful content, which, members I am sure would be aware, relates to child sexual abuse material and other prohibited online content.

These are all areas that are within the expertise of the eSafety Commissioner. For anyone who has inquiries on these matters amongst their constituency, it is important to make sure that they have this available. I recall a recent occasion when somebody contacted my office and said, 'My 16 year old has been photographed in a local hotel. It has been put on social media promoting the general hotel activity,' entirely innocently, in that sense. Nevertheless, the parent of the girl was quite disturbed and concerned by this, contacted the commissioner, and I think within minutes the offending material was withdrawn.

One of the concerns we all have is that any content that goes online can live forever, so it is important that, where possible, we have the cooperation of the agencies that provide the distribution and the keepers of this material. Although there is litigation and attempts legislatively to try to deal with ensuring that Google and everyone else who are keepers of information have a capacity to be able to ultimately deal with this—and, hopefully, we will be able to deal with this on an international level as to how we might manage that in the future—we have agencies to help us in the meantime.

I also recognise that, in the spirit of what has been raised by the member of material that has been restricted as a result of the state council applying a standard, mention has been made of the different standard, the extra protection, that the former attorney-general felt was necessary to be maintained for South Australia to have its own threshold of what was acceptable and what was not. There have been a number of occasions, in addition to the theatrical performances that have been referred to, where there has been a restriction of publication or a film reclassification.

In 1996, there was a category 1 restricted publication for The Picture Sextra, also The PictureSextra (all issues), and also The Picture (all issues). In 1998, there was a category 1 restricted publication for Spice Girls Poster Magazine. It might seem a little odd these days, but in those days it was seen as requiring a category 1 restriction. In 1999, there was a film reclassification of the Wild Wild West which had an M15+ rating.

In 2005, there was a film reclassification of Birth which had an MA15+ rating. It had adult themes, strong sex scenes, etc. In 2005, there was a film reclassification for 9 Songs which was 18+ restricted to 18 and over. It had actual sex and high-level sex scenes in it. In 2005, there was a film reclassification for Mysterious Skin—it must have been an era in 2005. It was an R18+ restricted to 18 and over. There were adult themes, strong sexual violence, medium-level sex scenes. In 2006, there was an unrestricted publication at M rating for Zoo Weekly. I hate to think what that was about.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, it was not recommended for readers under 15 years, let me say that. In 2007, there was an unrestricted publication again for Zoo Weekly magazine which had an M rating from unrestricted. There was Zoo Weekly magazine again later that year. In fact—heavens!—it was the Zoo Weekly magazine for all future issues of a series. That was in 2007, so Mr Atkinson's council must have been very busy that year. It was not recommended for readers under 15 years.

In 2007, there was a film reclassification for Georgia Rule which had child abuse themes, alcohol abuse themes, sexual references and moderate coarse language. In 2009, there was a refused classification publication for Just 18Magazine, Volume 10 Issue 9.

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It seems the member for Badcoe remembers that one. That was refused classification. There was another occasion of Just 18Magazine, when a serial classification of 24 months was refused classification. Again, in 2009, there was a refused classification—this is really busy—for Purely 18Magazine; another Purely 18Magazine for the holiday 2008. Then the Barely LegalMagazine Australia Edition was refused classification. Best of 18Teen AngelsMagazine was refused classification; 18 Teen Angels Magazine on five occasions was refused classification. They may have been actually renaming themselves, I do not know. Anyway, they kept getting refused. Purely 18Magazine and then Best of 18 Teen Angels Magazine was refused classification and 18 Teen Angels Magazine was refused classification.

Members will also remember, as per the second reading debate on this and as mentioned by the member for Badcoe, the film reclassification of A Serbian Film from R18 to refused classification in 2011. That was the last time the council undertook work. I am not quite sure how the attorney-general, Mr Atkinson, had time to do any work during 2009.

Ms Stinson: Some of those were John Rau.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, 2009.

Ms Stinson: 2011 was John Rau.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, all the ones in 2009 I was referring to. It was a very busy year. He had obviously been reading teen magazines to check whether the council's recommendations should be applied. In any event, he obviously found time and exercised his capacity as attorney to consider those recommendations.

I also place on the record that, whilst the practice of having a national scheme at times overlaps with a state scheme, it usually emanates from there being state regimes and a desire for uniformity and consistency, especially in the publication of films and literature, and even theatrical productions, which may have Australia-wide proposed audiences. Uniformity is often presented as an argument in circumstances where there is a practice—in this case, production in entertainment—that would provide for those providing and preparing material to have some consistency. Therefore, this is promoted to have a national scheme.

We moved to a national scheme. Certainly, it was decided by the former attorney that the South Australian Classification Council was to have a continued life, even though it was extinguished in other jurisdictions, so we have had it for a long time. I would like to thank Julie Redman for her work as the chair, whom I have also known for decades in legal practice, and those members of the council who were not reappointed after late last year by this government, purely because there was really no purpose in their continuing when this work was being competently undertaken at a national level, as we know.

I think it is important for all members to appreciate that we have areas of responsibility. When we do agree to transfer responsibility for certain issues to a national board or scheme, for example, it is done with good intentions. We have done it for very comprehensive areas, such as in income tax and in corporations law. There are lots of reasons and circumstances where we have transferred to a national level. I can think of consumer law that is now at a national level, as well as defamation law, and there is usually a very good reason for this.

However, South Australia is an autonomous body, state and entity which, through this parliament, has its own capacity to make legislation and to determine its own destiny in relation to matters. It should never be forgotten that we have the capacity to deal with a number of matters, and we do at times maintain a position where we have a different standard. I can think of one more recent example in the time I have been here when the minister for health of the day, the Hon. John Hill, proposed a scheme by which all our health practitioners and their regulations should be dealt with at a national level. It would be applied and implemented at the state level in offices around the country, but there would be a national scheme.

When we got to optical, opticians, optometrists and—I forget what the surgeons of optical work are; whatever their important title is—it was determined that in South Australia we had a regulatory regime that prohibited the use of plano lenses. Some people might know them as cosmetic lenses, which young girls in particular would use to make their eyes look green, cats eyes or something of that nature. We decided in South Australia this was such a dangerous practice, without instruction or without being under supervision, that they should not be sold or distributed without a prescription.

We had that rule here. The rest of the country did not, but we decided, when the Hon. John Hill promoted this national scheme, that we would require that we still retain the right to be able to insist that that occur, and we did. So there are times when we should not be, I suppose, blindfolded to the concept that at times we have in our state the better system, in our view, and we are entitled to retain that autonomy.

It became very clear in this instance, though, in relation to classification that, whilst the attorney-general of the day, the former member for Croydon, had a particular interest in maintaining his personal stamp in relation to these matters, it really was perpetuating a structure that had very little work to do, and the national scheme was able to comprehensively undertake that role.

I appreciate that the former member for Croydon is probably gnashing his teeth at this point at the prospect of this bill passing the parliament. He may not care at all, but I expect he is probably irritated to say the least. Notwithstanding that, I thought about making the bill in memory of the member for Croydon, the '(Atkinson) Bill', but I have resisted that temptation. I commend the bill to the house and thank those who have made a contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.A.W. Gardner.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms STINSON: Attorney, this clause is about the short title, isn't it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Ms STINSON: Excellent.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Ms STINSON: Yes, I will note that there is no mention of the word 'miscellaneous'. It is quite an extensive title and it does aptly describe what is in it, so there certainly will not be any objection from this side about the title. However, the Attorney did mention that she was considering alternative titles for the bill and that maybe it might be named in someone's honour. I wonder if the Attorney might be able to elaborate on some of the other options that she had either considered in the past or maybe that just spring to mind right now, which she may have alternatively named the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would also like to speak on the short title, and I thank the member for Badcoe for her invitation to treat as to the title that we have before us. Firstly, let me explain that 'classification of publications, films and computer games' are in separate areas of the bill relating to film, publications and computer games. It also amends the Summary Offences Act and the Classification of Theatrical Performances Act.

I explain that there is no use of the word 'miscellaneous' as an alternative because, unlike other bills from time to time that we have discussed on miscellaneous where there are different subject matters which the reform is proposing, and therefore consistent with the practice of parliamentary counsel to not give one particular area precedence or priority over the other, to recognise it in the title and then miss out other aspects, the term 'miscellaneous' is used.

However, neatly in this bill, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 incorporates all three, so it was not unreasonable for parliamentary counsel to have nominated the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill 2019 in those circumstances.

There may be some argument that the reference to 'classification of theatrical performances', which does not get a mention in the title, might offend the miscellaneous common use rule of parliamentary counsel, in which case, if anyone has any concerns about that, I am happy to take it up with parliamentary counsel and make sure that they are rapped over the knuckles about that one. It probably would have added an extra and much too long title for the bill, so I have not asked for that to be amended.

I could think of some magnificent names for this bill otherwise, not reflecting at all what it is about, and that is the 'capacity to classify and reclassify or refuse classification for certain publications, films, etc.', particularly because of the work that has been done by previous attorneys-general. I could start with the Hon. Trevor Griffin, who was not known for his radical thoughts and views. He has now passed away. He served as attorney-general in the Tonkin administration from 1979 to 1982 and then again under the Brown administration and the Olsen administration until about September 2001 or so.

After that, the Hon. Robert Lawson became attorney-general. He had a fairly short period as attorney-general and, to the best of my knowledge, he did not exercise any role under the state Classification Council procedure but certainly attorney-general Griffin did. I suppose we can blame him for taking advice from the then council in 1998 for having a restricted publication category 1 for the Spice Girls Poster magazine. I do not know what the contents of the poster were. I do not even recall it.

I happen to know who the Spice Girls were—at least I know that—but I do not remember their being in any state of undress in their public presentations or publications. However, there might have been some risqué presentation by them in this particular poster which attracted the concern of the council, that they were in some way offended by it and felt that it was necessary to have a restriction on the publication of this poster magazine.

As I have not viewed the material, I cannot answer to that. It would not surprise me, knowing the Hon. Trevor Griffin, as he was then the attorney-general, had a conservative approach to these matters. He may in some way have thought, or the council may have taken the view, that it would in some way corrupt the viewer of such material, particularly as I expect it was designed to be attractive for young men and young women to view.

We are talking about 20 years ago, last century. I can remember in my parents' day their complaining about persons who were critical of Elvis Presley, with gyrating hips and all sorts of other things that were seen to be obscene in the day and completely unacceptable. I can remember some rather B-grade movies that he was in but, in any event, it was quite scandalous at the time. He was prohibited from being on national television in the United States. There were church groups that protested against him being able to give performances, because this was seen in a way to be so offensive in his mode of dance that they wanted it concealed from impressionable young minds, especially those of young girls.

He really did, I suppose, start a particular form of music and dance, which had a baptism of fire and certainly was not welcomed amongst some of the homes, congregations and towns in the United States, which took a very conservative view to this. They were probably hopeful that their sons and daughters would be going off to balls and dancing the military two-step rather than actually hankering to go to an Elvis Presley event. They must have been completely blown away by the time the Beatles got on the scene. They were instrumental, frankly, in being able to bring at least Britain and Europe into the modern era and then eventually to impress this and develop a level of tolerance, acceptance and understanding of new mediums of art—in this case, music and dance—which became acceptable.

I am not quite sure what happened by the time we got to Woodstock. I was still at school, but it was seen to be fairly unsatisfactory and unsavoury—I would not say uncivilised—although there seemed to be a three-day event of lots of mud, lots of music, lots of drugs—

Ms Stinson: You didn't go?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It went to a film. As I say, I was still at school—goodness gracious, I would not have been allowed. It developed very much as a new cult and era in music of the day and what was acceptable or not.

Fortunately, our parents and so on seemed to have all survived the sixties, and by the time we got to the seventies there seemed to be actually a little bit more maturity brought back into theatrical and musical presentations for modern culture. In fact, if anything, there seemed to be a bit of a swing back. Perhaps that was the advent of television, I do not know. We did not get television on Kangaroo Island until about 1969 or 1970. We must have had it in 1969 because man walked on the moon, but unfortunately dad had not plugged in the aerial by that stage so it was all snow that we saw on the day.

We were still watching, I think, Brian Henderson, late-night shows, things of that nature. Things became very much more conservative. Depending on what the era was and depending on what was acceptable, whilst the community mores have varied over time there has always been a desire for governments to ensure that there is a process by which there is management of and the capacity to restrict material that might be offensive or completely unsuitable for certain age groups.

Historically, whether it has been literature or movie productions—obviously, we are now into the computer game era—there has been a need to change legislation and classification processes according to the mode by which we get entertained, so there have been very significant changes. However, the areas of classification have generally been dealt with in certain age groups.

Certainly in the time that I am aware of, the classification was done based on making an assessment of what would be suitable for different ages. Commonly, there would be a provision for up to 15 years of age to identify a level of maturity and then a classification between 15 and 18 years. Then, of course, there was over 18 years, which was R rated, as it used to be described: R18+, which was suitable for adults.

There would be these types of ratings so that parents could be assured that when these publications were purchased on video tapes or CDs or now online, of course—you can get them through Netflix—they could identify and be informed as to what they might want to view. They might not want to have violent scenes; they might be happy to look at sexual scenes, but not violent scenes as an adult, so there is a discrimination between what they want to watch but, more importantly, to ensure that children or teenagers are watching age-appropriate material. If there are adult themes, strong sex scenes or violence that clearly are inappropriate for children, this is a measure by which parents can police that.

It is similar for book classifications. Computer games are obviously a new medium of entertainment. Magazines have always been in the spotlight. They have always been a little bit more out there because of the very competitive magazine world. I do not know how they survive. I do not generally read them, but I still see them in every hairdressing shop and the like. Clearly, they still have a consumption, but they are probably finding it difficult, like all other print publications, to compete. For example, I can recall the first editions of Cleo being published in the 1970s.

Ms Stinson: Centrefold spreads.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, and I think, from memory, Jack Thompson was the first centrefold. He was very famous as an actor in the early seventies in Australia. I remember going to the world premier of the film Sunday Too Far Away with my dad. Mr Whitlam came over, as the prime minister of the day, with Mrs Whitlam. This was before the Casino even existed. I was there in my long white gloves and long dress. It was in the Railway Station. The whole of the station was gilded up with glitter and all the gossamer of the seventies' approach in those days. It was a huge event. Mr Thompson was very famous. He had two wives, as I remember, two sisters who were his companions in life. That introduction of new centrefolds to Cleo magazine was a bit like Elvis Presley in the fifties. This really did shake up those who were offended and, of course, they were ready to start shouting their position.

Films were coming into their own with the R rating. I suppose one has to draw on one's own experiences on these occasions. I can remember coming back along the Flagstaff Hill section of the Main South Road. My dad was driving. We were coming home late from a meeting at Victor Harbor. Probably some RSL meeting or it might have been a deb ball or something of that nature. Anyway, I was asleep in the front seat. Dad decides he cannot go any further. We stop at Flagstaff Hill at the drive-in—for those who might remember there was a drive-in there. I do not know whether it is still there. It is in the area I think the Minister for Environment is about to make into Glenthorne Park—another brilliant Marshall initiative. Is it still there?

The Hon. D.J. Speirs: Yes, but it looks decrepit.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The minister informs me that it looks decrepit. I am sorry to hear that. Anyway, here we go, we are driving along, dad is feeling very tired, so he says, 'We'll just go into the drive-in and you can watch a movie for a while. I'll have a few hours' sleep and then we will drive on.' I was of course underage and I could not drive. Well, I could drive, but I was not allowed to drive in Adelaide, at least.

We pull into the drive-in and pay whatever it was. He promptly puts the seat back and goes to sleep and I watch the film. The film was called Swedish Fly Girls. I always remember this film because I can tell you that I had never seen air hostesses like it. It was a very interesting film. It was extremely risqué for me, and I would later learn that of course it had a rating that was suitable for adult viewing—not for 12 year olds, which is probably what I was at the time.

In any event, I had a great time watching it. When dad woke up, he said, 'How did you go? Was the film quite good?' I said, 'Great, dad. It was all about flight and aviation.' I did not mention all the other activities that were undertaken by passengers and the air hostesses during the film. It was very interesting, but it gave me a little insight—so much so that I remember it even today—into what is suitable for young children and what is not.

We need to ensure that we maintain a standard in the country. Should the event come that we find that the Classification Council and model nationally are inadequate for South Australia, then bear in mind we have every right to restore these matters. In the meantime, I thank members for their contribution and I have no further questions in the committee.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 23) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (18:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.