CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (PARENTAL GUIDANCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 June 2010.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:46): I rise briefly to indicate Family First's support for the Hon. Ms Lensink's bill. This is a good bill. From time to time bills come up in this place that make you think 'Gee, why didn't I do that?' I must say this falls firmly into that category, so my congratulations to the Hon. Ms Lensink. This is a good initiative. It is one that I think, frankly, is overdue. Many of us bemoan the increasing sexualisation of children in our society and I think that this measure, although a very, very small step in that direction, is a step in the right direction towards curtailing that influence.

Another aspect of this bill that I think is particularly significant is that it really makes it clear that in many ways industry self-regulation is questionable at the least. In the case of the industry that this particular legislation targets, I think it is an industry that needs some regulation, needs a little bit of a helping hand in that direction, if you like. So this bill will go a very small way to doing that. It would certainly be a small step, but an important step, and one which we wholeheartedly support. I think there are many other things that can be done, of course, but this is a good step in the right direction and we support it wholeheartedly.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:48): I rise to indicate my support for the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Parental Guidance) Amendment Bill 2010, introduced into this place by the Hon. Michelle Lensink. This bill seeks to utilise existing consumer advice provisions in the classification act to provide parents purchasing tween or teen magazines with some guidance on the magazine's content and appropriateness for the child's age. As was highlighted at a briefing held yesterday morning—and I thank the honourable member for organising that—this bill comes before us as a result of a concerted campaign by the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia in the build-up to the March state election.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Is that different from what I said?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will correct that—YWCA, instead of YACSA. However, concerns about the sexualisation of children, particularly young girls, have rightly in my opinion long been held by parents, educators and professionals. Despite not having developed the cognitive, emotional or social tools to deal with exposure to adult and sexualised material, our children are literally bombarded with sexualised images and references and encouraged by media and advertisers to mimic adult behaviour and embrace adult ideals.

It is important that our children have a good sense of self, but they are losing the will and skills to enjoy and continue their growth through childhood to adolescence and are expected to bypass this special time in their lives and become adults long before they are capable of its comprehension. This period has been described by Dr Michael Carr-Gregg as the latency period.

We know that the seeds of body image disorders in teenagers are sown in childhood, during the formative years in which children begin to develop their understanding of status and develop their ideal body image. That research has shown that girls from the age of six desire a thinner ideal body and have an awareness of dieting to achieve this. Research has shown that this does not bode well for their adolescence, when body image concerns heighten and lead to low self-esteem, depression and eating disorders not just during adolescence but into adulthood.

Other members have drawn attention to the positive aspects of teen and tween magazines, such as articles on bullying, particularly cyber bullying, and fitness. While these are positive lessons and commendable, one cannot ignore that these magazines rely upon, if not exist entirely for, the advertising dollar. Advertisers see such magazines as an opportunity to target impressionable young girls and, unfortunately, like most advertising in the modern era, most of the adverts draw upon existing body image or attempt to create new body image or status insecurities.

With the sole intention of moving product, young girls are told that what makes them liked by their peers is the way they look and that they should look like the models wearing their product. They are told that looking sexy is empowering and that that look is only a product or two away. Additionally, most of the articles (if you can call them that) reinforce the unhealthy messages of these adverts, with the focus on denigrating or promoting the appearance of celebrities, provide tutorials on how to be more attractive (presumably to the opposite sex), including which clothes to buy and accessories to have, etc., and on coupling relationships.

This is then reinforced by peer group pressure, with Ms Rita Princi commenting at yesterday's briefing that some of her clients, who are young girls, have been teased for dressing differently from the ideals sold by these magazines, with some being teased for not having the magazines themselves targeted by this bill.

While it is easy to target our outrage at examples of overtly sexualised images and references in tween and teen magazines, the point needs to be made that such magazines are only a small part of the problem. From TV commercials and programs to Bratz dolls, bimbo celebrities and sexualised music videos and lyrics, the sorry reality is that, in our modern society, young girls are provided with few healthy female role models.

While this parliament must do all it can to restrict sexualised material being available to, and more importantly targeted at, young people, particularly young children, unfortunately, due to the federal classification scheme, we are very limited in our ability to independently exercise control over the classifications of teen and tween magazines and other material targeted at children. Working within these parameters, the bill before us instead seeks to utilise and, I guess, guide existing consumer advice provisions in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.

Consumer advice needs to be distinguished from classification. Classification is the formal categorisation of material into the relevant categories of classification listed in section 15 of the act, those being unrestricted, category 1, category 2 or refused classification (in the case of publications), whereas consumer advice is intended to supplement this rigid categorisation with advice or warnings for consumers.

There is no requirement for a publisher to submit an otherwise unrestricted classification publication to the South Australian Classification Council or the Attorney-General for assessment as to whether it requires consumer advice. Instead, and presumably as the honourable member intends, the Attorney-General or the council, having received a complaint about a publication, may under section 24A of the act call in a publication for reclassification and, despite knowing full well that its classification status will not change from unrestricted, decide as part of that process that it should carry consumer advice.

The decision as to whether a publication must carry a consumer advice marking is entirely at the discretion of either the Attorney-General or the classification council and, while the bill envisages guidelines, none presently exists. While the amendments to section 21 of the act, which provide for consumer advice warnings of a PG or M marking, would appear to be operative provisions, the ability of the minister to require consumer advice, whether it be using these well-known classification markings or some other warning, already exists in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.

I have had little time to research this bill since the briefing yesterday, so I am unaware of how often, if at all, the South Australian Attorney-General or the South Australian Classification Council exercises the power under section 21 and requires the publication to carry a consumer advice. The Labor member responding on behalf of the government may be able to answer that question for me.

I indicate to the council that I will be moving a minor amendment (I apologise to honourable members for the short notice) which will allow the Attorney-General, when making a notice under section 21, to also make a declaration under section 19A requiring all or a specific number of subsequent editions of that publication to also carry that consumer advice. My reading of section 19A in the act, particularly the term 'classification granted', is that it presently restricts declarations to the formal classifications listed in section 15 and cannot be applied to consumer advice; hence, it would be necessary for the Attorney-General to issue a notice for each subsequent edition.

While theoretically possible, in practice this would be unworkable and would create the difficulty for the publisher to add the consumer advice after it had been released, unless they had of their own volition brought it to the attention of the Attorney-General or council prior to its release, and that would be highly unlikely. Instead, my amendment will make clear that 'declaration' under section 19A can relate to consumer advice.

With that said, I support the bill as it at least seeks to address, within the limited capabilities of this parliament, the ever-growing concern about the sexualisation of our children. As stated, we should do all we can to push back against those who, for commercial gain, exploit our children, and hopefully in doing so reclaim that precious period in a child's life: their childhood.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (20:57): Parents and other people in the community are rightly interested in monitoring the material their children read. There has emerged in recent times a growing market for magazines, movies and consumer goods aimed at what are sometimes called tweens. The popularity of the Hannah Montana character and Bratz is evidence of this trend. I am aware of these characters as I do have a lot of nieces and nephews and they are quite interested in some of these things.

Some of the material aimed for sale to younger girls contains information or content that is of concern to parents. Some of this material might be reference to sex, drugs or strong language which, while not attracting any restriction in terms of classification, is not something parents want their children exposed to without their guidance.

The premature sexualisation of girls is a matter of considerable community debate and concern to parents, women's groups and others. This debate has canvassed a wide range of areas, including marketing, clothing, popular movies, music video clips and, of course, publications, which are the subject of this bill. The YWCA is to be commended for the interest it has shown in this subject and its commitment to the welfare of girls and their parents. I and a number of other Labor members, I am sure, would have been interested in attending the YWCA briefing yesterday, which was scheduled at the same time as the regular meeting of Labor members. This was pointed out to the Hon. Ms Lensink's office.

The government shares the concern of parents and others regarding the possible exposure of young girls in particular to inappropriate material without the guidance and education that parents provide. However, the government is not satisfied that this bill is the appropriate way to deal with the legitimate and well-considered concern that many in the community have expressed. It is necessary, firstly, to consider the classification regime that applies to publications. The bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, South Australia's National Classification Scheme legislation.

The National Classification Scheme (NCS) is a joint commonwealth, state and territory legislative and administrative scheme under which publications, films and computer games are classified and their advertising, sale, demonstration and exhibition regulated. The commonwealth legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, establishes the Classification Board; determines the types of classifications that are applied to publications, films and computer games; empowers the Classification Board to classify publications, films and computer games; sets out the procedures the Classification Board follows in making its classification decisions; and establishes a review mechanism (the Classification Review Board) which, on application, reviews decisions made by the Classification Board.

Each state and territory has enacted its own enforcement legislation. These acts determine how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated in each jurisdiction. The relevant South Australian act is the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.

Unlike other jurisdictions, South Australia maintains its own separate classification regime that can, if triggered, classify publications, films and computer games independently of the commonwealth boards. The classification bodies under the South Australian act are the South Australian Classification Council and minister. When classifying publications, films and computer games, the council and the minister have basically the same powers as the commonwealth boards and, like the boards, must classify in accordance with the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines issued under the commonwealth act. A classification decided by the council or minister has effect to exclude any classification of the same publication, film or computer game under the commonwealth act.

In addition to the power to classify a publication, film or computer game, the commonwealth boards and, by virtue of section 21 of the South Australian act, the South Australian council and minister may or must, depending upon the classification given, determine consumer advice giving information about the content of the publication, film or computer game. As this bill contains amendments relevant to publications, it is worthwhile briefly considering the classification of publications under the National Classification Scheme.

'Publication' is defined very broadly to mean any written or pictorial matter other than a film, computer game or an advertisement for a publication, film or computer game. Under the NCS legislation, code and guidelines, publications are either submittable (meaning they must be submitted for classification by the board) or not submittable. A submittable publication is one that, having regard to the classification code and guidelines, contains depictions or descriptions that:

(a) are likely to cause the publication to be classified 'refused classification';

(b) are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that the publication should not be sold or displayed as an unrestricted publication; or

(c) are unsuitable for a minor to see or read.

The point of the submittable/non-submittable distinction is to ensure that publications that contain material that is below that which would attract a restricted classification do not have to be submitted for classification. When one considers the content of non-submittable publications and the number of magazines, books, pictures and so on that are published and released for sale into the market each year, the logic of this becomes apparent. Once submitted, a publication may be classified in descending order—

refused classification (RC);

category 2 restricted;

category 1 restricted; or

unrestricted.

A publication not meeting the criteria for one of the restricted categories must be classified unrestricted.

Unrestricted publications may be sold from any premises to any person and, unless subject to an express condition to the contrary, need not be displayed or delivered in a particular type of packaging but must display the determined marking and any consumer advice determined by the classifying body.

I turn now to the bill which seeks to make changes to consumer warnings applying to unrestricted publications. Clauses 1 and 2 are formal. Clause 3 amends the definition of 'determined marking'. I understand that changes to the definition are consequential upon the amendments to section 21 in clause 5.

Clause 4 amends section 18 to make clear that that provision which requires publications, films and computer games to be classified by the council or the minister in accordance with the National Classification Code and the National Classification Guidelines must be read subject to the new provisions in section 21.

Clause 5 amends section 21 to add a new subsection (1)(a) that provides that the council or the minister may require a publication to carry one of two consumer warnings:

M—mature (not recommended for children under 15); and

PG—parental guidance recommended for children under 15.

The amendment relating to the M consumer warning is unnecessary. The guidelines for the classification of publications already provide that unrestricted publications containing material that is not suitable for readers under 15 years of age will be labelled with consumer advice that reads, 'M—Not recommended for readers under 15 years.'

The relevant determination under the commonwealth act, the Classification (Markings for Publications) Determination 2007, dictates the form of the required consumer warning. It is a rectangular box divided into three sections, the top section containing the word 'UNRESTRICTED', the middle section containing the words, 'M (Mature)' and the bottom section containing the words, 'NOT RECOMMENDED FOR READERS UNDER 15 YEARS'. The marking must be no smaller than 30 millimetres in height and 70 millimetres in width. It is an offence under section 46B of the South Australian act to sell a publication unless the relevant consumer advice is displayed on the publication or the packaging of the publication.

There is currently no provision for a PG type consumer warning to be mandated for unrestricted publications. PG is not a publication classification, so it is not entirely clear what types of publications would be caught by the amendment. PG is a film and computer game classification. A quick look at the code and the guidelines for films and computer games gives some idea of the sort of material that would get an unrestricted publication a PG consumer advice.

What would not be covered? First, anything unsuitable for a minor under the age of 18 would be restricted. Secondly, anything unsuitable for a child under the age of 15 would be unrestricted but would attract an M consumer warning. As indicated earlier, a provision for an M consumer warning already exists. That leaves material which, according to the film and computer game guidelines, may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting and may require the guidance of parents or guardians.

The impact of the classifiable elements—themes, violence, sex, language, drug use, nudity—should be no higher than mild. The scope of a PG consumer advice for publications could thus be extensive. A large range of mass circulation magazines, such as Woman's Day and New Idea, as well as so-called lads' magazines and health magazines, contain material that some children under the age of 15 might find confusing or upsetting, or which discuss one or more of the classifiable elements—themes, sex, violence, language, drug use, nudity—in a mild way. This could also apply to many novels, prints, paintings, and so on.

Under these amendments, the council or the minister would be required to examine any magazine, book, picture or publication reported to it, him or her as potentially containing PG material and be forced to assess it and, if appropriate, require the relevant consumer advice to be attached. Even if the government was prepared to run a massive complaints-based system, a new administrative structure would have to be established. This structure would have to include trained assessors and a support structure to receive and process complaints and notifications. The current system is simply not set up to deal with this. There is no administrative structure. There are no trained assessors. It would have to be set up largely from scratch and would involve a substantial cost to establish and run on an ongoing basis.

It would also add costs to publishers and distributors in South Australia who would face the prospect of their unrestricted publications being submitted, assessed and required to carry PG consumer advice. Distributors and retailers would be at risk of having popular titles removed from shelves to be repackaged with a PG warning, even though the particular magazine or book complies with the law in all other states and territories. This risk and associated costs could lead to publishers withdrawing titles from the South Australian market. They would not be popular with, nor fair on, the vast majority of magazine and book consumers.

If introduced, the new laws would need to be enforced. This would mean diverting police resources into enforcing PG consumer warnings on magazines, novels and the like. Parents are quite right to be concerned about the content of the magazines and books their children read. That is what the National Classification Scheme is there for.

In its current form, publications that contain material that is unsuitable for children under the age of 15 may already be identified and labelled with an M consumer warning. Extending this regime as proposed will make it expensive to administer, enforce and comply with, and would place South Australia out of step with the other member jurisdictions of the National Classification Scheme.

As I said earlier, the government understands the concerns of parents, family members and carers regarding content that children are exposed to; however, this bill is not the appropriate way to address these concerns because of its flaws. The government will consider further what may be more effective ways to deal with the problem, particularly in the context of the National Classification Scheme. I am not aware that this bill has been the subject of widespread consultation with interested groups and those it would affect, particularly retailers and publishers.

Given that some honourable members take the view that it is the government's responsibility to ensure private members' bills are dealt with promptly, that it is the government's responsibility to fix flaws in its own bills after their passage, and that it is the government's responsibility to consult with relevant industry operators on its own bills, the government cannot be satisfied that such a considerable change to the law should be rushed with fewer than two months' consideration. For all of the reasons I have outlined, the government opposes the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (21:10): I thank all honourable members for their contribution. I also thank the speakers who were prepared to come in yesterday to brief members, and I indicate for the record that they were Winnie Pelz, who is the Acting CE of YWCA; Rita Princi, who is a child and family psychologist; and Professor Elizabeth Handsley of Flinders University, who is an expert in media law. Both Rita and Elizabeth are board members of Young Media Australia, so they have spoken extensively on this issue. I do note from the preceding speaker that the ALP had its caucus at the same time; I apologise for that. However, things being as they were, all three of those speakers who were able to come in are very busy people, and I do appreciate their time. I do note that minister Gago was able to send her adviser, and I appreciate her attending.

In summing up, I reiterate for the record that there are many, many publications that the Classification Council just does not see. I anticipate that a very limited number of these publications would be captured by this legislation. As I said in the briefing yesterday, those publications know who they are. We have a system that is very much reliant upon the industry being aware of whether they are relevant to be captured by a particular piece of legislation. Then, if they are in breach, it relies on consumer complaints to the classification board and then investigation.

This bill will not restrict the sale of publications in any way; it is consumer advice. It provides two examples to determine markings that may be used; it does not mandate what they are. There are other ones that may also be anticipated. I believe it has provided an opportunity for greater community input and understanding of this particular issue. I am disappointed that, once again, the Labor government has decided to behave as a dog in the manger. While the government bleats platitudes about understanding the issue, it has used hyperbole and circular arguments not to support this bill. As I said in my second reading explanation, all of the parties were invited to address this issue at the YWCA; so they are certainly aware of it. It is a very small bill of some four clauses.

May I say that this is the government that sought to ban that great threat to civil society, the eating of cats and dogs, in its first term, yet this is an issue that is of great concern. There were 300 people who paid nearly $30 to go to Walford College on a cold evening to listen because they were very concerned about this issue. However, the government has chosen not to make any effort to participate in this and to send a message to marketers of products to children and pre-teens.

I also note that the Senate committee, which reported some time ago, which was chaired by a Labor senator and whose recommendations were provided to a Labor government, has done absolutely nothing to implement any of those recommendations. So, Mr President, you heard it here first: expect to see some version of this bill in some incarnation in the name of the government, and they will claim credit for themselves. I put them on notice that their actions are noted, and they will be judged accordingly. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: As I indicated, the government is concerned about this issue and wants to take a considered, measured approach to solving the problem. The honourable mover has said that this bill is only targeted at a small group of publications and that they know who they are. It is my understanding that the law does not quite work like that. If this bill were passed, the minister or the council would have to act on assessing publications reported to it. I do not think that the minister or the council could say, 'I'm sorry, this bill wasn't aimed at you,' because that is not what the act would provide.

You cannot pass clauses and amendments to laws and say, 'We only intend for it to apply to this group of people, and other people it won't apply to,' because that is not what the statute provides. So, I would ask the honourable member if she can confirm that it is her understanding that under these amendments the council or minister would be required to examine any magazine, book, picture or publication reported to it or him or her as potentially containing PG material, be forced to assess it and, if appropriate, require the relevant consumer advice to be attached?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think the honourable member quite deliberately misunderstands the way the classification system operates.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Just answer that question I just asked.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am answering it.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: No, you are not.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am answering it.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Well, you can just say yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, I am not going to just say yes. I am going to answer it in the way that I choose, not in the way that the acolyte of Don Farrell chooses to answer it for me. The way that the classification system operates is that it does not sit in judgment on every publication that is sold in South Australia. It relies on complaints, and not everybody sits around trying to ping a magazine for a particular complaint.

There was a complaint made to the council several years ago relating to a magazine called Zoo Weekly, I think it was, and so it investigated that. It said in the annual report that, specifically, the complaint focused upon matters of a violent content and alleged sexual content inclusive of that material printed on the cover of the magazine. The magazine is currently unrestricted in respect of its classification.

The Classification Council and the Attorney-General do not rush around to retailers and check every magazine for its content. It is reliant on complaints from members of the public, and in response to complaints it then investigates. So, obviously, the producers of magazines are very well aware of what the regulatory environment is doing, they are well aware that there was a Senate inquiry and they would be well aware that this parliament is looking at this particular issue and, therefore, they would be remiss if they did not seek to comply with those laws.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The short answer there was yes, the council or minister would be required to examine any magazine, book, picture or publication reported to it or him or her as potentially containing—

The Hon. A. Bressington: Due to a complaint made.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I said that.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Yes. So, what's your point?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Yes. So, she is agreeing that that is in fact how the bill works. The honourable—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: How am I insinuating it? I asked: is it correct that any publication, etc. referred or reported to the minister or the council would have to be assessed and potentially given a consumer advice? The answer, clearly, is yes. The honourable mover's response is, 'But not many of them will, and the publishers know what they've got to comply with, so it's not really a big issue.' Again, that is not the way to make laws, to say, 'We don't think that many people are going to be caught by this law, so it's not really that important.' That is really not the way the law works.

I would, therefore, ask the honourable mover if she is able to provide any information or whether has she made any estimates as to the cost of implementing this scheme, given that she does acknowledge that people would be able—whether or not they would choose to take up that option—to make complaints and have the minister or the council assess publications for PG content and potentially issue a warning.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On the question of cost, I am reliant on the record of the South Australian Classification Council. The one I have in my hand is for the year ended 30 June 2007, so I will necessarily have to make some assumptions that the number of complaints are comparable.

The council in that particular year met six times. Its expenditure for the year was $3,900. It received a total of 21 queries, and they were: complaint about advertising (seven); query about classification of a computer game (one); query about consumer advice (one); query about classification of films, video, DVD (two); complaint about merchandise (two); query about classification of publications (one); query about sale of computer game (one); complaint about TV content (two); query about the act (one); query about copyright (two); and information about censorship (one).

From that, I take it that two queries out of 21 related to the issues that might broadly come under this ambit. As it was $3,900, I cannot imagine that unless there were some sudden stampede of people rushing off to make complaints to the South Australian Classification Council that it would be significant.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I wish to place on the record that the honourable mover obviously failed to mention there that our scheme is consistent with the commonwealth scheme, so most of it is done by the commonwealth, which expends considerably more on the subject. This amendment would create a new category of consumer advice out of step with the rest of the jurisdictions in Australia, which I believe would create quite a number of newer complaints.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It is my opinion, and that is why I am asking the question. It is my opinion that it would lead to an increase in complaints, but I would be interested in what the honourable mover has done to investigate something a bit more thorough than her opinion. Clearly, she has not done that. She is having a guess, and the guess is that not many people would complain so it is not a problem. Clearly, there is no realistic or considered view on what this proposal would cost.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The member, quite rightly, is entitled to have his point of view, but I do not think he has advanced the discussion. If he is going to make the argument that this is inconsistent with the federal regime, why would we bother having the act at all? It has been retained by South Australia by successive governments, and it has taken an independent position on the issue of classification of computer games and, in some instances, films. Why should publications be any different?

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: You might want to tell us how much it will cost. That was simply my question.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, $3,900 to deal with 21 complaints in a financial year. You spend more in five minutes on the former auditor-general investigating the Burnside council, so that is a bit rich. If the honourable member has a question, I would be interested to hear it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 2, after line 23—Insert:

4A—Amendment of section 19A—Classification of publication forming part of a series

Section 19A—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) If the council or the minister makes a declaration under this section, other references in this act to classifying a publication will be taken to include applying a classification to publications in a series of publications within the ambit of the declaration (including with the effect that consumer advice applying to a publication that has been classified will also be applied to all publications within the ambit of the declaration).

As I said in my second reading contribution, this is a simple amendment that expands the application of section 19A in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to cover consumer advice notifications.

Section 19A of the act presently allows the Attorney-General or the Classification Council to make a declaration that a classification applied to a publication will also apply to all or a specific number of subsequent editions of that publication. My reading of section 19A of the act, particularly the term 'classification granted', is that it presently restricts declarations to the formal classifications listed in section 15 and cannot be applied to consumer advice.

The amendment does nothing to detract from the bill and, rather, simply seeks to avoid the doubt of whether section 19A can be applied to consumer advice notifications under section 21 of the act. It may not be necessary but, if the intent of this bill is carried, teen and tween magazines for the first time will be forced to carry consumer advice warnings, and it is my concern that a publisher may attempt to question the validity of a declaration under section 19A that relates solely to consumer advice.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am happy to accept the honourable member's amendment and commend it to the committee.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clause (5) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.