| Australian Classification Board | |
|---|---|
| Agency overview | |
| Formed | 1970 |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth of Australia |
| Minister responsible | Robert McClelland, Attorney-General |
| Parent agency | Attorney-General's Department (current parent agency), OFLC (Original parent agency), Australian Classification Review Board (sister agency) |
| Website | |
| http://www.classification.gov.au | |
The Australian Classification Board is a statutory classification body formed by the Australian Government which classifies films, television programs, video games and publications for broadcast, exhibition, sale or hire in Australia since its establishment in 1970. The Australian Classification Board was originally incorporated in the Office of Film and Literature Classification which was dissolved in 2006. The Attorney-General's Department now provides administrative support to the Board. Decisions made by the Board may be reviewed by the Australian Classification Review Board.
Contents |
The Classification Board is a statutory body established by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth). This Act also provides a basis for the National Classification Code which guides their decision making. As the State and Territory governments retain responsibility for enforcing censorship and could withdraw from or ignore the national classification scheme if they so wished, any changes to the national classification scheme must be agreed to by all the State and Territory Censorship Ministers (usually Attorneys-General). Despite this South Australia still maintains a separate Classification Council which can override national classification decisions in that state.
The Classification Board does not directly censor material by ordering cuts or changes. However, they are able to effectively censor media by refusing classification and making the media illegal for hire, exhibition and importation to Australia.
1970 saw the introduction of a newly formed classification system and body named the Australian Classification Board, a federal body that was been created to rate all films (and later in 1994, video games) that come into Australia. In the early years of the system, there were four ratings: G, for "General Exhibition"; NRC, "Not Recommended for Children"; M, for "Mature Audiences"; and R, for "Restricted Exhibition".[1] NRC later became PG and R became R18+, the G and M ratings were kept.
In 1993, the ACB introduced the MA15+ rating to fill in the gap between the M rating and the R18+ rating, due to complaints about films such as The Silence of the Lambs being too strong for the M rating (not recommended for younger audiences though any age is still allowed in) though not too high in impact to be rated R18+ (no one under 18 years of age).
The introduction of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) occurred in 1994. The OFLC overlooked the Australian Classification Board. In 2005 the OFLC was dissolved and the Australian Classification Board was handed over to the Attorney-General's Department.
On 22 July 2011, a meeting of Attorneys General produced an in-principle agreement to introduce the R18+ classification for videogames, however, NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith abstained from the vote. The Home Affairs Minister, Brendan O'Connor, has said the federal government would over-ride NSW and implement the R18+ rating regardless of its decision and will be officially available before the end of 2011.[2] On 10 August the NSW Attorney General agreed on the R18+ thus the rating would be accepted and available to all states before the end of 2011 and Brenden O'connor would not need to use the federal government to intervene.[3]
On 30 October 2011, the Classification Board applications manager David Emery stated that the R18+ Classification is "still at least two years away." [4]
Certain officials were concerned the appointment of Donald McDonald as Director in 2007 facilitated the Government's ability to control or restrict material, in particular that which incites or instructs terrorism.[5] McDonald was also pressured to step down after the ban of Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom lifted.
In 2010, the ACB classified an uncut version of Salo R18+, mainly due to extra material providing greater context. It had been banned since 1997 with two failed attempts since then.
Despite a line in the National Classification Code stating that "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want", the adult R18+ classification does not currently exist for video games.[6] Michael Atkinson, who was the South Australian Attorney-General until 2010, was a continuous opponent against introduction of the R18+ classification, and actively blocked the release of a discussion paper until just before his retirement, that canvassed the opinion of the Australian public on whether or not an R18+ classification should be introduced. In July 2011, the R18+ rating has been announced and is scheduled to be introduced before the end of the year.[7][2]
Despite the various controversies that have arisen with the classification of videogames within Australia, there are many examples of games getting much more lenient ratings compared to other countries. Such games would include Halo 3 which got an M (15 from BBFC, M17+ from ESRB, New Zealand's OFLC a R16), The Witcher which got an MA15+ (18 from PEGI, BBFC, and USK), Dead Rising and its sequel getting a MA15+ (18 from BBFC, PEGI and CERO), Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 getting a PG (17+ from ESRB and CERO), Zone of the Enders (and its sequel) getting a G8+/PG (R16 from New Zealand's OFLC, M17+ from ESRB, 15 from BBFC), Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened getting a PG (M17+ from ESRB, 16+ from PEGI), Neo Contra getting a G8+/PG (M17+ from ESRB, 15 from CERO) and Ar tonelico Qoga: Knell of Ar Ciel with a PG rating (M17+ from ESRB, 15 from CERO).
The classifications below are advisory in nature—they do not impose any legal restrictions on access or distribution of material.[8]:
By contrast, the classifications below are legally restricted—i.e., it is illegal to sell or exhibit materials so classified to a person younger than the respective age limit.[8]
Classification is mandatory, and films that are rated Refused Classification by the ACB are banned for sale, hire or public exhibition, carrying a maximum fine of $275,000 and/or 10 years jail. It is, however, legal to possess RC films (except in Western Australia and parts of the Northern Territory), unless they contain illegal content (e.g. child pornography).
These ratings are still shown on some older video games that are still on sale in Australia:
| G – General : The G classification is for a general audience. | |
| G8+ – General for children over 8 years of age: Material classified G8+ may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting, and may require the guidance of parents or guardians. It is not recommended for viewing by people under 8 without guidance from parents or guardians. This rating has since been changed to PG to parallel that of film ratings. | |
| M15+ – Mature: Despite the title, material classified M15+ is not recommended for people under 15 years of age. Nonetheless, there are still no legal restrictions thus any age is allowed to access these titles. This rating has since been changed to M to parallel film ratings. | |
| MA15+ – Mature Accompanied (Restricted): Material classified MA15+ is considered unsuitable for people under 15 years of age. It is a legally restricted category. People under the age of 15 are not allowed to purchase or hire unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. |
The current permanent members of the Classification Board[9]:
– Unrestricted
– Unrestricted – Mature- Not recommended for readers under 15.
– Restricted Category 1 – Not available to persons under 18 years.
– Restricted Category 2 – Pornographic in nature; restricted as above.
Literature only needs to be classified if it contains anything that might lead to a Category 1 classification or higher. Any classified literature that does NOT fall into any of the above categories is rated Refused Classification (Banned). It is uncommon for these ratings to appear on books.
In 2008, the board made a decision on whether or not nude photos displayed in an exhibition of work by Bill Henson should have been removed or not. The review found the photograph was "mild and justified".[10]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||