HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (EXEMPTIONS AND APPROVALS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 October 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:52): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in relation to the classification bill. On 15 September the Attorney-General introduced a bill in the other place to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The National Classification Scheme 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.

Unlike other jurisdictions, South Australia maintains a separate classification regime that can, if triggered, classify publications, films and computer games independently of the commonwealth classification and Classification Review Board. That separate regime was a source of pride for the former attorney-general, Mr Atkinson.

In South Australia the power to grant exemptions and approve organisations is conferred on the minister. All other states and territories except Queensland confer the power to grant exemptions and approve organisations on the director of the classification board, either alone or concurrently with the minister.

Queensland has amended its legislation to confer the power on the director and the minister concurrently, but I understand these amendments are yet to commence. The government argues that there are several advantages in having the director of the classification board make exemption and approval decisions. The government argues that the director has the relevant expertise and resources to properly assess films, publications and computer games, and those organisations seeking approval. The government also argues that the decisions will be more consistent.

This bill amends the South Australian act to confer the power to grant exemptions and approve organisations on the national director. The minister, it is proposed, will retain the power to grant exemptions and approve organisations. New section 79B makes clear that the minister may refer an application to the director for consideration, and new section 79C provides that a decision made or approval given by the national director may either on application or on the minister's own initiative be revoked by the minister if the minister considers that it is not appropriate that the direction be made or the approval given. The measure provides for the requirements of an application made to the minister under the section.

This is not a simple expansion of options. It also places significant obstacles in the path of applicants who choose to approach the minister. The bill is clearly structured not only to provide for the national director to exercise powers under the state act but in fact to encourage people to go to the national director rather than to the minister.

Applications to the minister would need to be lodged 60 days in advance, whereas there is no time limit with the national director. Applications to the minister would need to be in writing and accompanied by specified information, whereas there is no requirement with the national director. Applications to the minister will be subject to fees and there are no fees in relation to an application to the national director.

The opposition accepts the government's argument to allow South Australians to engage the national director but we note that the government is not seeking to remove the minister from the process. The government proposes to maintain that concurrent power. The opposition amendments filed in my name, and foreshadowed in the other place, insist that if the power is to be concurrent in name it should be concurrent in practice also. South Australians should be able to access the processes through the minister on the same basis as through the national director. The opposition amendments seek to restore level pathways—the pathway to the minister and the pathway to the national director.

If the minister wants to withdraw from the process, let the government put such a bill before this place and we can discuss that option, but to do it by stealth is not appropriate. The opposition will be moving amendments and seeks the support of the council to provide South Australians with more options, without barriers to taking up those options.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.


At 17:57 the council adjourned until Wednesday 10 November 2010 at 11:00.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT