Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4535 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

A case recently arose in which a prosecution against an X film licensee, for allegedly possessing approximately 16,000 unclassified films with an intention of selling the films, was dismissed on technical grounds associated with deficiencies in the procedures followed when the films were submitted for classification by the prosecution to the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The end result was that a total of 16,000 films, some of which had been refused classification when submitted to the OFLC as part of the case, and others which were known to still be unclassified, had to be returned to the licensee. That, in my view, is totally unsatisfactory.

The proposed amendments also introduce requirements for the registrar to notify persons from whom a film has been seized of their rights in relation to the return of the film and the fact that, if satisfactory information establishing that the film is classified X or below is not provided within the specified period of 120 days, or any extension of that period, the film can be destroyed. This will ensure that persons affected by the provisions are fully informed about their rights and obligations. The proposed amendments also require the registrar to destroy any film seized if the person from whom it was seized, after being notified of the relevant provisions relating to the return of the film, does not satisfy the registrar that the film is classified X or below.

Again, while a film might be destroyed even though a prosecution has not been launched, or no offence has been proved in relation to the film, it is a fundamental principle of the scheme contained in the Act that, where a film has been seized in circumstances where an offence against the Act is alleged, the person from whom it is seized should bear the onus to prove that the film is classified before it is returned. If a person is unable, or unwilling, to do so, then it is preferable that the film be destroyed, rather than returning a film which could be unclassified, or, if submitted for classification, could be refused classification. I believe that we should do everything possible to guard against the possibility of such films resurfacing in an adult shop for sale or being shipped interstate to be sold illegally.

The proposed amendments also require the registrar to destroy a seized film where that film has resulted, at least in part, in the cancellation of the licence of the X film licensee from whom it was seized, or where it has been associated with a defined offence under the Act. This is a change to the current situation, where any film associated with a defined offence is required to be returned to the person from whom it was seized, even if they are successfully prosecuted for the offence, unless the film has been refused classification. Currently, in the course of prosecuting a matter, the Government may be required to go to the expense of having an allegedly unclassified film classified. Even on successful prosecution of a person in relation to the seized film, the film must still be returned after having been classified X or below at government expense. This is an unacceptable situation and the Bill will prevent persons from benefiting from their offences in this way.

The Bill also includes a capacity for the registrar to retain a seized film even though the film would have been otherwise required to be destroyed. I have included this because the retention of allegedly unclassified films or refused classification films will enable the registrar to establish a body of material which will prove invaluable in the future regulation of the Act and in the education of licensees in relation to their obligations

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .