CHAPTER 6
Enforcement of the classification system and interaction of the National Classification
Scheme with Customs regulations
6.1
Term of reference (c) refers to 'the enforcement system, including
call-in notices, referrals to state and territory law enforcement agencies and
follow-up of such referrals'.
6.2
In its submission, the Attorney-General's Department (Department) noted
that, pursuant to the National Classification Scheme, the states and territories
are chiefly responsible for enforcing the laws under the National
Classification Scheme, and that neither the Department nor the Classification
Board has powers of enforcement.[1]
The agencies responsible for enforcement of classification laws in each state
and territory jurisdiction are as follows:
The ACT Office of Regulatory Services and ACT Policing (part
of the Australian Federal Police) enforce classification laws in the ACT. The
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation enforces
classification laws in Queensland, on behalf of the Queensland Department of
Justice and Attorney-General. State and Territory police are responsible for
enforcing classification laws in other jurisdictions.[2]
6.3
This chapter considers the effectiveness of the 'call-in' notice regime along
with the adequacy of information-sharing between Commonwealth and state and territory
agencies in relation to the referral of classification matters. The chapter
also examines the enforcement of classification laws by states and territories,
and discusses the role of the Classification Liaison Scheme.
6.4
There is also discussion in this chapter of term of reference (d), the
interaction between the National Classification Scheme and relevant Customs
regulations. As the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) noted
in its submission, an important part of its enforcement role is 'to prevent,
deter and detect prohibited, harmful and prohibited goods from entering
Australia'.[3]
It is therefore appropriate to consider the interaction of the National Classification
Scheme with Customs regulations in the broader context of the classification
enforcement regime.
'Call-in' notices
6.5
The powers of the Director of the Classification Board to 'call-in'
publications were explained in the Department's submission:
If a publication is unclassified, the Director has powers
under the Commonwealth Classification Act and the State and Territory
enforcement Acts to require publishers to submit an application for
classification of a publication within three days, when the Director has
reasonable grounds to believe the publication is submittable and is or will be
published in Australia (the 'call-in' power).[4]
6.6
Section 23A of the Classification Act 1995 makes provision for
the Director of the Classification Board to call-in films if:
(a)
there are reasonable grounds to believe that an unclassified film is not
an exempt film; and
(b)
the film is being published in the ACT, or there are reasonable grounds
to believe it will be published in the ACT.[5]
6.7
A person who receives a call-in notice under section 23A of the Classification
Act 1995 has three days to comply with the notice.[6]
6.8
The Department's submission set out the numbers of call-in notices
issued by the Director of the Classification Board in recent years, and the corresponding
response to these call–in notices:
In 2009-10, the Director called in 49 adult publications and
444 adult films.
In the 2010-11 period to 31 December 2010, the Director
called in 8 adult publications and 32 adult films.
Only one of the publishers of adult magazines has complied
with a call-in notice issued by the [Classification] Board. While some
distributors indicated they no longer have copies of the called in product to
submit, it is an offence not to comply with a call-in notice. Where call-in
notices are not complied with the Department refers these matters to State and
Territory enforcement agencies.
6.9
The Director of the Classification Board gave evidence to the Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee during the hearings for
Budget Estimates 2011-12 that, in the current financial year to 30 April 2011,
he had called in seven publications and 158 adult films. Only one of those
call-in notices for publications has been complied with and none of the film
call-in notices have been complied with.[7]
6.10
The lack of compliance with call-in notices has been an issue that has
been discussed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation
Committee for a number of years in the context of the estimates process.[8]
At the hearings for Additional Budget Estimates 2010-11, the Director of the
Classification Board reiterated his long-held view that the failure of
publishers and distributors to respond to call-in notices does not mean that the
system is a failure:
To date, only one call-in notice for adult publications has
been complied with, and the majority of films called in have not been complied
with either. ...I do not believe this constitutes a systems failure, but in
fact establishes that a breach of classification legislation has occurred. In each
and every instance the Attorney-General's Department notifies the relevant law
enforcement agency of the failure to comply. I will continue to use my call-in
powers in circumstances where I believe it is warranted.[9]
6.11
The committee notes that when questioned about the lack of responses in
relation to call-in notices at a hearing for Additional Estimates 2010-11, the
Director of the Classification Board responded that he is 'pleased that
progress is being made with enforcement'.[10]
6.12
Evidence to this inquiry suggested, however, that the high level of non-compliance
of publishers and distributors with call-in notices is indicative of a failure
of the system. For example, FamilyVoice Australia referred to the 'abysmal'
response rate to call-in notices:
It would be helpful to try to improve the abysmal response
rate to call-in notices by introducing penalties for failure to comply with a
notice, including suspension from using any services of the Classification
Board for a fixed period, say twelve months, and until all call-in notices are
complied with.[11]
6.13
Similarly, Ms Melinda Tankard Reist of Collective Shout told the
committee:
The Classification Board has shown that it is ineffective to
deal with recalcitrant distributors...They have ignored hundreds and hundreds
of call‑in notices. There are no penalties for non-compliance, and yet
they want even more self regulation than they already have, when they cannot
even comply with the basic standards right now....
We recommend a major overhaul of the enforcement system,
including introducing penalties for failure to respond to call-in notices,
removing distributors who breach the scheme from access to further
classification services...[12]
6.14
The Eros Association described the call-in system for adult publications
as 'entirely ineffective':
While available for all classifiable material it is only ever
used on publications. It is unclear as to what the point actually is in
'calling in' a publication and [the] purpose it serves. As stated earlier, numerous
companies sell the same publication. The end result of a call-in, is that the classification
of the modified version is revoked even though that was not the version found
in the market place.[13]
6.15
Ms Julie Gale from Kids Free 2B Kids told the committee of her frustration
with the call-in system, and explained why she had stopped submitting material
to the Classification Board for auditing:
I could be out there buying porn magazines and submitting
them to be audited every week. I see examples, because I know the [guidelines]
very well now, of magazines that are clearly not meant to be on the public
shelves but, in terms of spending dollars consistently on the porn industry, I
just stopped.
As to the numbers that the Classification Board could be
sending out, the call-in notices could be so much greater than the numbers that
they are because they are relying on people like Melinda [Tankard Reist] and I
and others to bring to their attention the magazines that are not complying.
Some time ago I stopped even bothering, because we just saw that it was futile
and that most of them do not comply. I certainly did not want to keep spending
money on proving the point.[14]
6.16
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) referred to the 'systemic failure
of the call-in system':
Despite the Classification Board having the capacity to
'call-in' for classification any submittable publication, or any film or
computer game, this power has proven extremely ineffective in preventing
unclassified pornographic content from becoming available on the Australian
market.
According to answers to questions taken on notice in a recent
round of Senate Estimates hearings, 'Since 1 January 2008, 858 items mainly
concerned with sex or sexualised nudity ("adult material") have been
called in'. The result: 'In this period, no distributors of adult material have
submitted films or publications for classification as a result of the call-ins'.[15]
6.17
ACL also called for 'heavy financial penalties' where call-in notices are
not complied with, and for an increase in penalties where there are repeated
failures of compliance.[16]
6.18
The Department's submission noted the issues which are the main subject
of referrals to law enforcement agencies:
-
displaying for sale unclassified adult films or submittable
publications;
-
displaying for sale adult films and/or publications with
incorrect markings, suggesting a film or publication is classified or has a
different classification;
-
non-compliance with a call-in notice issued by the Director of
the Classification Board to submit a film or publication for classification;
and
-
advertising for sale unclassified adult films.[17]
6.19
In terms of the follow-up of referrals, the Department explained that
'[l]aw enforcement agencies are asked, but are not required, to advise the
Department when they investigate a referral from the Department'.[18]
6.20
This apparent gap in the enforcement system, where matters are referred
to state and territory law enforcement agencies and there is no requirement for
the agency to inform the Department of the outcome of the referral, has also been
the subject of consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Legislation Committee in the estimates process. The Secretary of the Department
advised in 2010 that there is 'some level of awareness' about referrals.[19]
It was also noted that, while state and territory agencies may contact the
Department for advice or assistance, the Commonwealth 'does not have a
repository of data about state and territory law enforcement'.[20]
6.21
During the current inquiry, the Department was able to provide the committee
with some details in relation to enforcement actions:
The Department is aware that state and territory police have
undertaken a number of enforcement actions over the past eighteen months. For
example in December 2010 Classification Liaison Scheme (CLS) officers were
advised by NSW Police of action against two adult retailers in the Lake
Illawarra area. 5,000 DVDs were seized from one store and 2,000 from another.
CLS has referred these premises to the NSW Police in 2009.[21]
6.22
Further:
CLS have been advised that on 4 May 2011, the owner of one
store pleaded guilty and was fined $1500 plus court costs and an order was made
for the 5,000 DVDs seized to be destroyed. On 4 May 2011 the owner of the store
where 2,000 DVDs were seized pleaded not guilty...[22]
6.23
The Department also informed the committee that, from July 2010 to
April 2011, the Department was notified of police investigations into
seven Classification Liaison Scheme referrals. The outcomes of those referrals
included, for example, warnings being issued with no charges being laid; a fine
of $9,000 and an 18-month good behaviour bond; and a total of over 23,000 films
seized and destroyed.[23]
Need for enhanced
information-sharing
6.24
The lack of follow-up of referrals was highlighted by witnesses as a key
flaw in the cooperative National Classification Scheme. For example, Ms Melinda
Tankard Reist of Collective Shout noted:
...the absence of a centralised information system about
follow up by any state or territory law enforcement officers for continual
breaches of the scheme.[24]
6.25
ACL referred to a 'reckless lack of coordination between the [Classification]
Board, the Commonwealth Attorney‐General's
Department and state and territory law enforcement agencies to have notices
complied with'.[25]
6.26
FamilyVoice Australia also emphasised the need for the coordinated
sharing of information in relation to law enforcement:
While it is appropriate that law enforcement of the
classification system remains a matter for the states it would be very useful
for the Commonwealth to play a role in coordinating information on the results
of law enforcement efforts. Publications and films that are found to be in
breach of the classification system are likely to be offered for sale in more
than one state, not just in the state in which a copy of the offending
publication or film has been found.[26]
6.27
It appears that the idea of a centralised database for sharing
information on referrals has had some consideration by the relevant
Commonwealth, and state and territory bodies. As the Department's submission
noted:
At the first Classification Enforcement Forum held in Sydney
in 2010, representatives [of the Working Party] indicated an interest in
increasing coordination and information sharing to enhance enforcement of
classification offences.
...While there is no obligation for enforcement agencies to
advise of the outcomes of investigations the Minister wrote to police Ministers
on 10 February 2011 asking for this information as part of a wider
strategy of increasing information sharing to improve compliance with
classification laws. This will be progressed through the Classification Enforcement
Forum.[27]
6.28
In evidence to the committee, officers of the Department indicated that
they 'support the general merit of the idea' of a centralised database.[28]
The Department was asked to indicate any barriers to the establishment of a
centralised database for tracking referrals of classification matters:
A centralised platform for intelligence sharing would require
the commitment and participation of all relevant state and territory government
agencies. Policy discussions on the feasibility and any impediments are ongoing
and will be further considered...[T]he need for a centralised database would
also need to be fully assessed, including whether the objective could be
achieved in other ways.[29]
Effectiveness of the enforcement
system
6.29
There appeared to be a range of views on the effectiveness of the
enforcement of classification. For example, Ms Irene Graham referred to the
states and territories giving such work a 'low priority'. Ms Graham attributed that
to an 'ever increasing censorship criteria'; and, further, 'in the absence of
evidence of widespread community support for more censorship...both governments
and their police services are likely aware that censorship enforcement may be a
pretty much thankless activity...'.[30]
6.30
Mr Robert Harvey described the enforcement system as 'more than
adequate', stating that, if anything, state and territory agencies were
'overzealous in ensuring that action is taken against anything that might be an
offence'.[31]
In contrast, the Australian Council on Children and the Media (ACCM) described
the application of the enforcement provisions as 'very lax'.[32]
In evidence to the committee, Ms Barbara Biggins of the ACCM set out her
concerns in more detail:
...enforcement at the level of publications: where they are
displayed; whether in fact they are displayed in conformity with the requirements
for how they could be displayed; and whether in fact publications are actually being
displayed with appropriate classifications. There seems to be quite some
evidence that there are issues there. Because there is very little monitoring
or a great variability in the monitoring of publications from state to state,
that is an area of enforcement that really does need to be looked at.
The other area of enforcement that would concern us is
whether enforcement in fact can occur. When you are looking at the legally
classified categories of MA15+ and R18+, there is certainly very good evidence
that it is almost impossible to enforce the age restrictions on portable items such
as DVDs and computer games. It is almost impossible to protect children despite
what the law says because once those portable items are out of the retail
outlet then there are very few controls.[33]
6.31
Salt Shakers called for better education in relation to the enforcement
system for classification:
There needs to be a better system that would allow citizens
to work with law-enforcement agencies on this matter. Very few individuals know
the difference between Category 1, Category 2 and nonrestricted and 'Refused
classification' pornographic material. Often they don't know that it is illegal
to sell or display X18+ material in stores (even adult stores) around the
states. Even if they do, and they notice breaches of the Guidelines the
person does not know who to contact. If a person does not know what the
classification system entails or how it is enforced, then often the classifying
of publications is, at best, a token effort.[34]
6.32
The Arts Law Centre of Australia called for 'standardisation in
classification enforcement laws' because they vary in detail across the states
and territories.[35]
6.33
The Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria (OPP) advised that it has
prosecuted very few cases in the higher courts in recent years:
...figures [reveal] that during the period 2000 to 2010...there
were only 11 offences of Possessing an unclassified or RC film with intent to
sell in a commercial quantity and 1 offence of Copying an unclassified film with
intent to sell in a commercial quantity recorded. The state Act contains very
few indictable offences. With respect to both of the above offences none have
been recorded in the last five years.
During the same time period 30 offences of Possessing an X rated
film with intent to sell or exhibit, 18 offences of Possessing an unclassified
film, 45 offences of Selling an unclassified film, 6 offences of Selling a
Refused Classification film and 29 offences of Selling a film classified X are
recorded. Many of the less serious offences under the state Act are recorded as
also having very few or no offences recorded.[36]
6.34
The OPP also noted that 'the statistics do appear to reveal an emphasis
or concentration of effort on the offences...relating to on-line information
services'.[37]
Further:
As to the reasons for the small number of reported offences
it is unclear whether this is due to factors such as the complexity of the
state Act, the lack of a specialised unit within Victoria Police specifically
to deal with such matters or a change in resourcing priorities by Victoria
Police.[38]
6.35
The committee also notes the views of the Director of the Classification
Board, when questioned about an apparent lack of action by state and territory
law enforcement agencies:
My impression is that it really comes down to the priorities
that the states and territories place on this. They wish to have these rules
and regulations in place, they are parties to the scheme but in pursuing these
matters presumably their police forces...have to make decisions about what
resources they put to it. The effort that goes into it varies from state to
state. There is possibly, if I could say, an issue of how fair dinkum the
states are about this.[39]
6.36
Finally, Mr Bruce Arnold and Dr Sarah Ailwood highlighted the need for
the collection of empirical evidence as a basis for policy development in this
area:
As a basis for informed policy development and coherent
enforcement the Committee may wish to encourage the collection, critical
analysis and publication of data...[Such] activity might be undertaken by the
Australian Institute of Criminology or the Australian Law Reform Commission
(ALRC).[40]
Classification Liaison Scheme
6.37
The Department's submission set out the role of the Classification
Liaison Scheme (CLS):
CLS is a joint Australian Government, State and Territory
initiative established in 1997 with the primary functions of educating industry
about classification and checking compliance with classification laws.
CLS officers visit a wide range of premises throughout
Australia, including cinemas, DVD and computer game stores, newsagencies,
petrol stations, adult premises, games arcades and convenience stores. CLS
officers actively check whether classifiable material complies with classification
laws and refer breaches to law enforcement agencies.[41]
6.38
The Classification Liaison Scheme has four officers.[42]
The Department's submission noted that, for the first half of the 2010-11
financial year (to 31 December 2010), the Classification Liaison Scheme has:
-
conducted 490 site visits across all states and territories,
including regional centres;
-
contacted 124 companies about breaches of classification laws;
and
-
referred 49 restricted premises and three websites to enforcement
agencies.[43]
6.39
The Department provided further information on these statistics in
answers to questions on notice. For example, in relation to the 124 companies
contacted about breaches of classification law noted above, adult premises are
not included in this category, and the breaches identified were relatively
minor. The Department stated that, in general, 'companies are very cooperative
and responsive to the Classification Liaison Scheme advice and incorrect
practices are often corrected immediately'.[44]
The Department also outlined some of the responses received where companies
were contacted about breaches:
-
a website was corrected after films were advertised with
incorrect classification;
-
the catalogue for a major retailer was withdrawn for advertising
unclassified computer games and the distributor submitted the games for
classification;
-
a film was submitted for classification after being incorrectly
assessed by the distributor as exempt from classification.[45]
6.40
The committee notes that witnesses expressed a range of views on the Classification
Liaison Scheme's work. The Eros Association highlighted concerns that it has about
the role of the Classification Liaison Scheme apparently evolving from one of education
to one of enforcement.[46]
Alternatively, Ms Melinda Tankard Reist of Collective Shout was of the
view that the Classification Liaison Scheme does little to assist in the
follow-up of breaches of the Classification Act 1995.[47]
Interaction between the National Classification Scheme and Customs
regulations
6.41
Customs describes its responsibility in relation to classification as:
[P]reventing imports of objectionable material. The standard
for determining what is objectionable mirrors the 'refused classification'
standard under the national classification guidelines and includes, materials
depicting child pornography, sexualised violence or materials that incite
terrorism.[48]
6.42
In its submission, Customs emphasised that it does not have a role in
classifying goods or determining whether goods are packaged to meet certain
requirements for display, and described the limitations of its role:
Determinations by officers are intentionally limited to
assessing whether the goods would be considered objectionable under customs
legislation at the time they are imported. If they are not considered to be
objectionable, no further assessments are made as to their
classification...This is appropriate as many goods assessed are intended only
for private consumption.[49]
Defining 'objectionable' material
6.43
Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Customs
PI Regulations) prohibits the importation of 'objectionable goods' unless
permission is received from the Attorney-General. Objectionable goods are
defined as publications and any other goods that:
-
describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex,
drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent
phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality,
decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent
that they should not be imported; or
-
describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether
the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
-
are computer games that are unsuitable for under-18s; or
-
promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or
-
promote or incite the misuse of a prohibited drug; or
-
advocate the doing of a terrorist act.[50]
6.44
Border control measures are linked to the National Classification Scheme
through a definition of objectionable material that mirrors the Refused Classification
category in the National Classification Scheme. While the Customs PI
Regulations are intended to mirror the Classification Act 1995, they are
not identical.[51]
6.45
The penalty for importing objectionable material differs depending on
the nature of the offence. Personal importations can include fines of up to
three times the value of the goods or $110,000 (whichever is greater), while
commercial importations can also lead to five years imprisonment.[52]
Importation of child pornography, whether personal or commercial, can result in
penalties of up to $275,000 in fines and ten years' imprisonment.[53]
6.46
Due to the heavy criminal penalty imposed on an individual that imports
child pornography, the Customs Act 1901 includes a detailed definition
of items of child pornography or child abuse material that is independent from
the definition provided in the Customs PI Regulations.[54]
Determining objectionable material
6.47
While the Department has policy responsibility for the National Classification
Scheme, Customs administers import (and export) controls on objectionable
material at the borders, on behalf of the Department.[55]
6.48
The Department provides training to Customs officers to assist them in
their ability to make determinations. In addition, the Department advises
Customs about classification decisions, including reclassifications and lists
of items that have been refused classification.[56]
6.49
Customs will also consult the Australian Federal Police or state and territory
police, and potentially child welfare authorities, on any detections of child
pornography.[57]
Enforcement action by Customs
6.50
Customs detects and assesses a substantial quantity of objectionable
material each year. Its general practice is to refer serious offences, such as
child pornography, for prosecution, whereas in less serious cases offending
items are seized and destroyed.[58]
6.51
Customs provided the committee with detailed information relating to the
detection of objectionable material:
Table 6.1: Detection of objectionable
material (2009–10)[59]
| |
Mode
of entry |
|
Media Type |
Passengers |
Post |
Small
Craft |
Cargo
(Air) |
Cargo
(Sea) |
Totals |
|
Computer |
82 |
|
2 |
1 |
|
85 |
|
DVD |
346 |
355 |
16 |
132 |
21 |
870 |
|
Electronic Storage* |
206 |
6 |
9 |
6 |
|
227 |
|
Game |
1 |
105 |
|
4 |
|
110 |
|
Mobile Phone |
35 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
37 |
|
Publication |
15 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
35 |
|
Unknown** |
7 |
2 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Totals |
692 |
479 |
30 |
149 |
23 |
1373 |
6.52
As described in Table 6.1, Customs made 1,373 detections of
objectionable material in the 2009-10 financial year. Customs informed the
committee that, of these, 54 cases were prosecuted: 47 cases involved child pornography;
seven cases involved abhorrent material (for example, harmful or disgusting
fetishes); and two cases involved violence. None of these cases related to
terrorism material. The majority of these prosecutions arose from detections
relating to passengers. All but four of the child pornography cases were
successfully prosecuted.[60]
6.53
For the 2009-10 financial year, sentences handed down included thirty
custodial sentences ranging from one month to three years, two suspended sentences
over 12 months, 11 good behaviour bonds ranging from 12 months to three years
and one community service sentence. For the same period, court–imposed payments
totalled $211,754.[61]
6.54
Customs also provided information for the current financial year, to 30 April 2011.
In that period, Customs made 1,072 detections. Customs noted that it has experienced
a reduction in the number of objectionable material matters being referred for
investigation compared to 2009-10. In particular, fewer child pornography
related matters have been referred.[62]
6.55
Customs informed the committee that, while the detection rate of
objectionable material has remained consistent, the reduction of serious
offences may indicate that an information campaign undertaken by Customs is
having an effect on the number of importations of this nature.[63]
Issues
6.56
Customs submitted that any revision of the criteria by which material is
Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme would require
similar amendments to be made to the Customs PI Regulations. This would be
necessary to ensure that the classification and border control regimes continue
to complement one another.[64]
6.57
As noted above, Customs officers determine whether material is
objectionable, based on criteria in the Customs PI Regulations that mirror the
National Classification Scheme guidelines for a refusal of classification. During
the inquiry, Ms Irene Graham submitted that the determination that
material is 'objectionable', and therefore prohibited, should be made by the
Classification Board as the appropriate authority on classifications in
Australia:
Members of the Australian public are constantly told that
they should "trust" the National Classification Scheme because
classification decisions are made by a so-called "independent"
Classification Board whose names are made publicly available. However, the
customs import regulations basically import the definition of "Refused Classification"
from the Classification Code and allow (unknown/unidentified) customs officers
to guess whether or not the Classification Board would "refuse
classification" to particular material.[65]
6.58
For this reason, Ms Graham recommended that relevant legislation and
regulations should be amended to ensure that Customs officers refer material to
the Classification Board for classification.[66]
6.59
The Eros Association alleged that new operating rules adopted by Customs
in 2011 have changed the way in which films are treated:
Customs now maintain that the industry cannot import a film
or publication that 'may' be Refused Classification...[M]ost publications and
almost all films need to be modified to meet the stringent Australian
classification guidelines. For the past 30 years this has meant that bona fide
operators have had to bring in a master tape or disk from overseas which is
modified, then submitted and classified and then duplicated from. Now Customs
are saying that even a master disk has to be classified to bring it in but you
cannot classify the film if you do not have a copy of it in the country.[67]
6.60
The Eros Association described this as a 'Catch-22' situation that was
significantly affecting legitimate importers of X18+ rated films.[68]
Expanding upon the effects of this apparent change in policy, Mr Robert Swan,
Coordinator of the Eros Foundation, stated:
My members [want] to put...the position that the Australian
classification scheme, as a national scheme, is completely broken and for them
it does not work. I think this year we will see zero classifications for all
adult publications in Australia and we will now see, as a result of a Customs
decision taken two weeks ago, zero classifications for X-rated films in
Australia. If you look back around about the mid-1990s, there were 6,000 classifications
a year for X-rated films in Australia. As I say, if nothing happens with the
change at Customs in which they are now forbidding adult importers to bring in
masters from which they can edit and make X-rated films that fit the Australian
scheme, then there will be no classifications.[69]
6.61
Salt Shakers submitted that the ability of Customs to screen imports
needs to be improved to ensure that all objectionable material is captured.[70]
6.62
Two other submitters noted that the ability to source material that has
been Refused Classification through the internet impacts on the ability of Customs
to prevent physical importations.[71]
6.63
FamilyVoice Australia noted that the definition of objectionable
material seeks to mirror the Refused Classification category, including any
computer game rated above MA15+. FamilyVoice Australia drew the committee's
attention to the fact that the sale of X18+ films is prohibited in all
Australian jurisdictions except for the ACT and parts of the Northern Territory
(NT) (possession of such material is prohibited in certain areas of the NT).
FamilyVoice Australia therefore recommended that the Customs PI Regulations should
be amended to prohibit the importation of X18+ films so as to reflect the
position of the majority of jurisdictions in Australia.[72]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page