New Film Classification Guidelines More Permissive
New Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games come into effect on 30 March 2003 following their approval by attorneys-general from the Commonwealth, States and Territories at their November 2002 meeting. The Victorian Government was in caretaker mode at the time of this meeting but the Victorian Attorney-General has since signed off on the Guidelines. These Guidelines are significantly more permissive than the previous version which had been in place since September 2000.
Changes to the G classification will be of particular concern to parents. This classification is for a general audience. While not all G classified movies will be of interest to all children (many documentaries would attract a G classification) parents should be able to have confidence that nothing in a G classified movie will be unsuitable for children's viewing. However, this revision of the Guidelines has, for the first time, provided for both drug use and nudity in the G classification. This means that there is now no classification which will indicate to a parent that the film is completely free of drug use and nudity. (Very mild coarse language and very mild and very discreetly implied sexual activity have been permitted in the G classification for some time.) The Censorship Act does not require the Classification Board to provide consumer advice for the G classification so there may not even be a notice to parents that a particular G film or computer game contains nudity or references to drug use.
Previously the G classification made no reference to drug use. The 2000 Guidelines provided that "discreet verbal references and mild, incidental visuals of drug use" would attract a PG classification. The new Guidelines allow films in which drug use is "implied only very discreetly and justified by context" to be classified G.
The previous Guidelines then had a graded set of rules for depiction of drug use through M (discreetly shown); MA (shown, but detailed depictions should not have a high degree of impact); R (shown but not gratuitously detailed). The new Guidelines abandon this gradation and for PG, M and MA simply state that "drug use should be justified by context". The concept of "justified by context" is not clearly defined although the introduction to the Guidelines state "Context is crucial in determining whether a classifiable element is justified by the story-line or themes. In particular, the way in which important social issues are dealt with may require a mature or adult perspective. This means that material that falls into a particular classification category in one context may fall outside it in another."
Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs and material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use remain prohibited, so that films violating this rule should be Refused Classification (RC).
In a parallel development, nudity is now referred to the first time in relation to the G classification. For G, PG, M and MA the new Guidelines state with no further qualification that "Nudity should be justified by context". The previous Guidelines had a graduated approach - no nudity in G; "not detailed" in PG; "depictions that contain detail should not be gratuitous" and "nudity in a sexual context should not contain a lot of detail or be prolonged" in M; and "depictions of nudity in a sexual context which contain detail should not be exploitative" in MA.
For the R rating the previous requirement that "Nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact" has been replaced with the bald statement that "Nudity is permitted".
The R rating retains the rule on sex that "Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is "simulation, yes - the real thing, no." This rule is far from clear as shown in two divergent decisions by the Classification Review Board. The Board in its decision on Romance, stated that while the "general rule is simulation, yes - the real thing, no" this "provides the Board with a discretion in certain limited instances to permit explicit depictions of sexual activity within an educational or artistic context within the R 18+ classification". In its subsequent decision on the Baise Moi the Board relied on the rule, along with the prohibition on "obvious genital contact" in part of its finding that this film did not qualify for the R classification.
The tighter restrictions on X films, imposed by the Federal Government after the defeat by National Party backbencher Deanne Kelly of the pornography industry's campaign to rename this classification "Non Violent Erotica" in the hope of legalising its sale in the States, have survived this review intact.
None of the above changes were canvassed in the discussion paper issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) in late 2001 seeking public submissions on revised classification guidelines.
The review received 372 submissions. These were analysed by Dr Jeffrey Brand of Bond University's Centre for New Media Research and Education. Among his recommendations were that "the standards in the Guidelines be less restrictive than those in both the Draft Revised Guidelines and the existing Guidelines". This recommendation was neither justified by the submissions - many of which called for more restrictive guidelines - nor explained in any further detail.
The OFLC was authorised by the Commonwealth, State and Territory censorship ministers meeting on March 8, 2002 to "develop a clear set of classification guidelines for both films and computer games and to further consult with industry and the community, as appropriate". No public consultation with the community took place before the Censorship ministers approved the final new Guidelines in November 2002. At that same meeting the censorship ministers decided not to proceed with the proposal to establish an R classification for computer games. This was the result of resistance from South Australian Attorney General Mick Atkinson and a lack of enthusiasm from Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams following a targeted campaign involving Federal backbenchers. The new Guidelines do, however, combine the classification schemes for films and computer games. In the introduction to the Guidelines there is a discussion on "interactivity" which states "except in material restricted to adults, nudity and sexual activity must not be related to incentives and rewards". This comment seems to be left over from an earlier draft that must have included provision for R classified computer games. It should be amended to state that "material that contains nudity and sexual activity related to incentives and rewards is Refused Classification".
Concerned parents and citizens should start lobbying now to ensure that in the next revision of the Guidelines the final draft is made public before being approved by the censorship ministers. A review process in which the final product bears no resemblance to either the previous Guidelines, the draft Guidelines issued for public comment, or the weight of public submissions is unacceptable.
Write to the Prime Minister and your local Federal MP pointing out that the G classification has been changed to allow drug use and nudity without any public discussion of this change. Ask for the Guidelines to be put on hold until this can be remedied.
Family Update, March-April 2003, p. 5