Classification Bill: Labor fails to enforce laws against violent and degrading material

Hansard: 26 February 2008 ASSEMBLY

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) — The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Bill makes a series of amendments to administrative arrangements consequential on the commonwealth’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Act 2007. This amendment act was passed by the commonwealth Parliament during its last term, under the Howard government. In the words of the Attorney-General in his second-reading speech:

These amendments were agreed to by censorship ministers through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (censorship) forum.

The amendments are quite straightforward. The first set of amendments clarifies that additions to already classified films of descriptions or translations such as subtitling or captioning are not to be considered modifications requiring reclassification. The second area of amendment allows authorised industry assessors to make classification recommendations to the Classification Board about films containing additional content such as subtitling. The third area of amendment confers responsibility for determining classification markings and the manner of their display on the commonwealth minister after consultation with participating ministers — that is, ministers of states and territories. In order to give effect to these three broad heads of amendment the bill also contains a series of consequential and mechanical amendments. As I said, the provisions of the bill itself are straightforward.

The opposition has received no feedback raising any concerns about them, and they have our support.

The significant issue about this bill is not so much what is in it as what is not in it. The issue of the classification of material and, even more importantly, the enforcement of the classification laws in this state is one that has justifiably received some public attention in recent times. I refer in particular to an article that was published in the Sunday Age of 17 February at page 20 entitled ‘The X files’. This article confirms what has become apparent through feedback from other sources — namely, that there is a proliferation of illegal material throughout Victoria and that little is being done to tackle that proliferation. The article says:

Victorian laws ban the sale of films that are X-rated, unclassified or have been refused classification because they feature images showing sexual violence, the offensive or demeaning treatment of women, or child pornography. What, then, do the stocked shelves of our adult stores say about the state of those laws?

As the Sunday Age discovered, adult stores openly flout prohibitions against the sale of X-rated or unclassified films with seemingly no fear of reproach. Rows of such DVDs are displayed brazenly on the shelves …

At best, the law appears ineffectual — at worst, unworkable. Victoria Police have the power to enter and search adult stores and to seize any illegal material, but police sources complain such prosecutions are typically time consuming, protracted and ultimately unsuccessful.

On the record, Victoria Police will only say there is no evidence of an increase in the illegal trade of X-rated or unclassified films, or films that have been refused classification.

Our investigation suggests the contrary is true.
Elsewhere in the article the journalist gives numerous examples of material that the Sunday Age was able to obtain from visiting various stores around Victoria.

Later on in the article the author says:

In 2003-04, Victoria Police recorded 152 offences for breaches of the classification law and arrested, charged or cautioned 64 people. Between 2006-07 — and I interpolate that I think the text should say ‘by 2006-07’ — those figures had plummeted to only 14 recorded offences and 12 people. Indeed, a Club X employee in Melbourne, who asked not to be named, told the Sunday Age his store had not been raided by police since 1991.
Later on there are some further remarks which in some sense are the most disturbing of all insofar as they reflect on some of the thinking of senior legal and possibly government figures in our state. The article states:

Professor Neil Rees, chairman of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, instead compares the ban on the sale of X-rated films with previously stringent laws against any use of so-called soft drugs.
Quoting him directly the article states:

A generation ago, the laws relating to marijuana were quite draconian and for some time huge efforts were not made to enforce those laws because community attitudes were in the process of changing …

It is not unusual for there to be a gap between the law as written on the books and what actually happens in practice, and that may result from changing community attitudes and the government deciding that the best approach is to sit quietly and do nothing until community attitudes evolve to a point where there might be support for some significant change in the law.

That final quote in particular is most concerning, not only in terms of the attitudes espoused by the chairman of the Victorian Law Reform Commission himself but also in what he suggests may be the attitude within government to the proliferation of this material. To be fair to Professor Rees, and of course we are assuming he has been accurately quoted, his remarks related only to X-rated material and not material that has been refused classification or unclassified material. However, if his remarks can be taken in one context, they can also be taken in the broader context.

What he seems to be saying is, ‘The law ought to be changed, we know better than the community or the Parliament that the law ought to be changed and we are supporting a policy of the police and others, including the government, doing nothing to uphold the law and allowing the proliferation of this material throughout Victoria’.

As I quoted, he referred particularly to the proposition of the government deciding that the best approach is to sit quietly and do nothing. I think government speakers in this debate need to make clear to the house whether in fact it is government policy to sit quietly and do nothing about the proliferation of this material around Victoria.

I need hardly say to the house that much of this material, almost by definition, is material that consists of actual or simulated violence against women and actual or simulated abuse of children. It is material which has either been refused classification by our national censorship authorities because of those factors or which were it to be submitted would be refused classification. It should not be the policy of the government of this state, and hopefully it is not, to, as the professor says, sit quietly and do nothing about such material.

It certainly should not be for the government to say that because it has passed the laws, it is in the hands of the police and they have to set their priorities, and that it has nothing to do with the government. That answer would be completely unacceptable, because ultimately the enforcement regime and mechanism that is applied is a matter for the government. The Parliament determines the law that should be applied. If the government believes that the law should be changed, let it bring legislation to the Parliament to propose changes to the law. Let it not change the law by stealth and inaction.

It is perhaps particularly revealing and disturbing that Professor Rees drew an analogy with marijuana to justify the approach he seems to be advocating. As our colleague the member for Doncaster, alongside many others over recent years, has been pointing out, the effects of marijuana in terms of triggering mental illness and other very serious complications are increasingly coming to be appreciated.

So if the lesson of the metaphor or analogy that Professor Rees uses of marijuana is to be followed, it should be giving us even greater warning that the approach of going quiet and doing nothing about material that encourages and depicts violence against women or abuse of children should not be condoned or tolerated.

I hardly need to remind the house that Victoria continues to have a very serious if not increasing social problem with violence against women and abuse of children. It is something that the government has recognised on the record, has promised to do something about and has been incredibly tardy in doing many things about. We are still awaiting legislation that was the subject of a detailed report to the government by the Law Reform Commission many years ago and which the Attorney-General promised to act upon in terms of measures that would intervene to provide greater protection, particularly for women and children in circumstances of family violence. There is every good ground to think that the sort of material that I am referring to simply exacerbates and adds to those social problems, and that indeed is one of the very compelling reasons why as a community we have determined to have laws that ban those sorts of materials.

Action needs to be taken on these matters. Action could well have been included in the bill that is before the house. Some of the action that we need to be contemplating in order to tackle this problem includes considering whether there needs to be any change to the specification of offences in terms of how they are defined or are to be evidenced in the courts. This is to overcome some of the problems that the Sunday Age quoted police sources as referring to regarding prosecutions being time consuming and protracted. To be fair, this is an issue that goes back some time, but if the evidence is that the police are finding it increasingly difficult to operate under existing laws that is something we need to be looking at changing to make their enforcement more effective.

We also need to look at the issue of who is doing the enforcement. Our police force is certainly very stretched for resources at the moment, as is evidenced by the struggles that police are having in coping with the wave of street violence to which this state is subject. The police certainly have to set priorities, but if police priorities and resources are proving inadequate to extend to enforcement of laws prohibiting this material which are strongly supported across the community, then we need to look at other ways of achieving effective enforcement. For example, we should consider whether a greater range of responsibilities in this area should be vested in consumer affairs or a similar inspectorate.

The consumer affairs inspectorate has its own shortcomings, as my colleague the member for Malvern, amongst others, can bear evidence to.

However, it may be that its skill set, based on its ability to police other forms of consumer products, may be more effective in tackling the proliferation of illegal material across Victoria. The ultimate question is not who does the enforcement but how effective the enforcement is. If vesting powers in an inspectorate such as the consumer affairs inspectorate can assist that process, that is something that ought to be contemplated.

These are the serious issues that are confronting the state in relation to this illegal material that are not being effectively dealt with at present. These are the sorts of measures that we would have expected to see in the bill currently before the house, but regrettably those measures are not in the bill. As for the very limited measures — mechanical and administrative — that are in the bill, they in themselves are worthwhile and have our support, but there is a lot that should have been in this bill that is not.