Page 3135 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would also like to ask the Attorney-General, Madam Speaker, whether he could keep the Assembly informed about any incidents which do arise. The Commonwealth has asked the Chief Censor - and my understanding is that all States and Territories have agreed - to interpret the guidelines with relation to computer games more vigorously than would be the case with films and videos. The fundamental reason for this is believed to be that, because computer games are more interactive with the people playing them, more potential harm or damage can occur to children in particular than would be the case with films and videos. There is, of course, no specific evidence as yet which supports this position. Indeed, the opportunity exists, Madam Speaker, for considerable research work to be done in this area to ascertain as far as possible whether this is the case. I have been unable thus far to obtain a copy of the final guidelines as they will be applied by the Office of Film and Literature Classification; only draft guidelines are available at the moment. These guidelines will, I understand, be incorporated into the Commonwealth agreement with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General at some stage.
The final issue I wish to raise, Madam Speaker, concerns the penalty provisions which apply to some sections of the Bill. I would like to comment on them with regard to their apparent inconsistency with each other. I will quote two examples. Section 27 of the current Publications Control Act, which relates to advertising matter, contains three penalty provisions where the penalty is a $500 fine or imprisonment for three months or both. The relevant amending section of the Bill, which is clause 32, proposes penalty provisions of $3,000, $1,000 and $2,000 respectively.
Similarly, section 28 of the current Act, which refers to restricted publications areas, contains three penalty provisions where the fine is $500 or imprisonment for three months or both. The relevant amending section of the Bill, clause 33, proposes penalty provisions of $1,000, $500 and $3,000 respectively. Madam Speaker, these decisions appear to have been based on whether the provisions are seen to be technical, in accordance with the penalty principles regime established by the Statute Law Revision (Penalties) Bill, or are seen to be in the public interest. However, an explanation of the rationale for these decisions would have been useful to members, to assist in the understanding of the penalty provisions and how they have been applied.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that this matter which we are considering today will be the first of a number in relation to the classification of computer games. I certainly hope that the Attorney-General will report regularly to the Assembly on general classification issues, because it seems to be an area in which the Attorneys-General from the various States and Territories and the Commonwealth Government have a very keen interest.
MR STEVENSON (4.17): Mr Connolly and those involved in proposing this legislation deserve commendation. It is an excellent job to handle something that is worth while when it comes to government setting standards. There has been, as Mr Connolly mentioned in his introductory speech, some concern by the industry about the compulsory nature of the scheme; but there are situations where government must set standards and people look at those standards to determine, in many cases, how they should operate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .