I have been asking questions about books like ‘The Boys’ and ‘Welcome to Sex’ that expose young children to adult sexual concepts and behaviours. Even worse these books do so in a way that encourages and normalises child sexual behaviour. The rating system for printed works, like these graphic novels, has failed to keep pace with the appearance of the graphic novels more than 20 years ago.
A review of the classification system for written works was promised last year by the Mininster during a meeting with me and I am still waiting for that review to start. At the moment this adult cartoon content is legal to sell to a child of any age because of a loophole in the current system.
After these questions, I hope the Minister with call the review immediately. Sexual material of this nature must be at least rated MA14+, making it illegal to sell to children under 14.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Mr Sharp.
Mr Sharp: Pleasure, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: In response to a question at October Senate estimates relating to the inquiry into the adequacy of the rating system, Senator Brown made this statement. I will quote: “Informal consultation with government stakeholders has commenced. Public consultation will occur early in 2024”. I subsequently received a response to my question on notice which provided the same information. It’s early in 2024 and the Classification Board website does not mention an inquiry. Has public consultation started? If not, when will it?
Mr Sharp: Senator, I refer you to the department on that. We have been participating in the stage 1 reforms that have been passed. That legislation has been passed. The board has been consulted as part of that. Effectively, the preparation for the implementation of that is occurring. As for the stage 2, the board has no further information on when that will occur. I refer you to the department for further information.
Senator ROBERTS: When is the review into the classification scheme going to start? Senator Brown said that it would be starting in early 2024.
Mr Sharp: I don’t have that information, Senator. We are a key stakeholder, but that’s a decision for the minister and the department.
Senator ROBERTS: So I have to ask the department?
Mr Sharp: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Brown, you said it would start in early 2024.
Senator Carol Brown: And it’s very early 2024. Are we talking about the second stage of the reform?
Senator ROBERTS: The review into the classification system.
Senator Carol Brown: The second stage of the reform will clarify the scheme’s purpose and scope and establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and improve the responsiveness of the scheme to evolving community standards and expectations. I will have to take on notice any particular date. The departmental representative can answer.
Mr Windeyer: I caught your question. Just to assist, yes, the intention is still that public consultation will kick off early this year. A precise date I don’t have, but that remains the intention.
Senator ROBERTS: Are we talking a month or so?
Mr Windeyer: I don’t want to put a time on it. Yes, the intention is still early this year to commence public consultation on the stage 2 reforms.
Senator ROBERTS: In response to my question regarding the graphic novel Welcome to sex, which I described as targeted to 10-year-olds and up—the author in fact says it’s suitable for eight-year-olds and up—Ms Jolly, who I guess is your predecessor—
Mr Sharp: Correct, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: responded, and I quote: Our understanding is that the book clearly states that it is targeted to teenagers from 13 up. Here is the book, which on the flyleaf identifies the reader as an ‘apprehensive 11-year-old’. Amazon still has the listing at 10 plus. I do note that Hardie Grant, the publishers, have removed reference to an age entirely, so we’re heading in the right direction. It is unhelpful, though, to potential purchasers and where other booksellers have it listed at 14 plus. Can you clarify, on notice please, Mr Sharp, what age is the Classification Board happy with— 10 plus or 14 plus—and why?
Mr Sharp: Senator, it’s actually not the place of the board to predict what age something should be available other than through the classification process. We’ve had no applications for that book at this time and the board has not reviewed it.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s now self-classification, I take it, since the legislation was passed. Is that correct?
Mr Sharp: No, Senator. That’s not correct. The stage 1 reforms did not address anything to do with publications. Publications can either be submitted for classification by the publisher or they can be called in by the director if there’s a belief that it could possibly be a submittable publication.
Senator ROBERTS: In other words, self-publication is one of the choices or submitted to the board?
Mr Sharp: Well, it’s not self-classification, Senator. It is the publisher choosing to have the board classify it by making an application for that. Self-classification generally is referred to as them making a choice about what that classification is and publishing it in that way. Senator ROBERTS: I thought the publisher could classify it or ask the board to classify it. I thought that’s what you said.
Mr Sharp: No. The publisher can put it forward as an application to be classified by the board, or the board can call it in separately.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. There seems to be some backside covering going on with the publishers because they’ve started to shift the age upwards slightly. In the last estimates, in response to my question about the options available to the Classification Board for graphic novels, Ms Jolly, your predecessor said, and I quote: “I think the board’s submission to the Stevens review back in 2020 was that we felt there would be benefit in having some greater graduations in classifications”. The Stevens report did not make that recommendation at all. In fact, quoting from page 66 of his report, Mr Stevens said: “On balance, I do not consider that a compelling case has been made for an additional classification category in isolation of a more fundamental look at all the categories”. Mr Sharp and Senator Brown, will you assure the committee that your work in this imminent review will provide that in-depth look at available options that supports a legally binding intermediate classification such as MA14+ or MA15+?
Mr Sharp: Well, Senator, it’s a good question. The board does not have any input into the scope of that review. However, I can say that on the public record the board in 2020 for the Stevens review made a submission and made recommendations around publications with the idea of harmonising and aligning all the guidelines—the film, computer game and the publication—so that they are more clear in their administering and for the public to understand. Within that, the board did note that it would make sense to abolish the existing unrestricted category 1 and category 2, which really is unclear to the public, and institute possibly an M, an R18+ or an X18+, which would align to those three categories and are well understood by the public within the film classification and computer games classification. That was part of the board’s submission in 2020. The board still has a position.
Senator ROBERTS: We think the MA14+ or MA15+ are necessary because it’s not suitable for under 14s and it is suitable for 14s and up and 15s and up. That would fit in with your M. Is that correct?
Mr Sharp: Well, not exactly, Senator. M is not recommended for persons under 15. MA is a legally restricted classification.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?
Mr Sharp: It means that people under 15 years cannot purchase the publication and, similarly with a film, cannot view a film unless they have an adult doing that for them. It’s not that they cannot hold it, but they cannot purchase it or buy a ticket to it themselves. So the board’s previous submission was for an M, which is an equivalent to unrestricted. Currently, you may well be aware that unrestricted can also have an additional consumer advice of not recommended for persons under 15 years. R18 would be the equivalent of a category 1 currently, and there is X18. So the intention of the board in that submission, and our position today still, is to use classification designations that the public understands, recognises and trusts very well within the film classification area and the computer game classification area.
Senator ROBERTS: So would that mean it would not be possible for a 14-year-old or under 14 to buy this?
Mr Sharp: It would be strongly recommended that it’s not for that age group. But it would not be legally prohibited to do so. It would be advised that a parent make a decision around that. Parental guidance is part of that process.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are heading in what would be the right direction for me.
Mr Sharp: I’m pleased to hear that, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: But that’s what it sounds like. I’m just checking.
Mr Sharp: I believe we’re on the same page.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think under 14s should be able to get this, but let’s see what happens with your review, which is imminent.
Mr Windeyer: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll ask in May.
Senator Carol Brown: There will be more to say in due course, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Brown.
