R18+rated computer games on the agenda

Campaign added to website: December 16, 2009.

Currently R18+ rated computer games - which contain high levels of sex and violence - are BANNED in Australia. This includes the very violent game Manhunt and BMX XXX which features topless riders and video clips of strippers.

However the Rudd government is considering whether the R18+ classification category should be extended to include computer games.

A Discussion Paper has been released by the government.
Click here for the Discussion paper - full details and links below.

Submissions are due by February 28, 2010.

A template has been provided to help you make a submission - more info below...

The Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor said the government had released a discussion paper on the issue - he claimed they were 'not advocating a position'. He told the Herald Sun "We are releasing a discussion paper, rather than proposing a change, so we have an opportunity to gauge all community views on the subject."

The 16 page Discussion Paper gives arguments for both sides.

Of course, once you start 'discussing' a topic it is just one step closer to making the change!

Over the years there have been numerous inquiries into classification standards - this is yet another attempt to re-consider allowing R18+ rated computer games.

Why don't we want R18+ rated video/computer games?

If R18+ rated games are made available the authorities will be not be able to control who gets to watch them.

The games involve an additional interactive component where the player actually takes on the character and internalise the actions as they play the game.

Those supporting the availability of such games say that most gamers are over 30, that children won't be able to buy them, that people could import them anyway and that they have a 'right' to watch anything they want.

However, just ask them "If you can graphically simulate murdering, raping, mutilating, torturing somebody, etc, in a video game, what aspect of your character will be enhanced by doing so?"
The response? There is not one single "benefit" of R-rated games that will enhance or improve character! 

Report: R-rated games could get nod - Herald Sun, December 15, 2009. 

ACTION

1. Download the Discussion Paper (links below).

 

2. Make a submission by February 28, 2010.
A submission template is available to assist in making a submission.

You are asked to use the template - which says:

In your submission you need to answer the question:
"Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games?

You need to provide some details about yourself, answer the main question and then answer some questions relating to the 'arguments'.

To make it easier, we've provided the 'suggested answers':
R rated games inquiry - suggested responses

You then then make a short comment - up to 250 words!

It also explains how to send your submission and tells you where to send it!

Send submission/letter to:
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  
Fax: 02 6141 3488
Post: Classification Review, Attorney-General's Department, 3 -5 National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600. 

The Discussion Paper

 

Webpage about the Discussion paper on the federal Attorney-General’s website – click here.

 

Downloads (from the AG's website) - available on the website link in the line above also.

  Discussion Paper - Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games? - 3.69MB
  Discussion Paper - Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games? - 124KB
  Submission Template - Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games? - 31KB

South Australia - Euthanasia Bill

The South Australian Government is about to consider and vote on a bill to legalise euthanasia.

Ros Phillips of FamilyVoice Australia, has provided us with the following information about the Bill.

They have written a Vox Alert and a Briefing Paper to help people in South Australia to contact their MPs and ask them to VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL!

South Australians, you have ONE MP in the House of Assembly and ALL Members in the Legislative Council.

Contact details for SA MPs - click here.

About the BILL

Ros writes ...

"Another bill to legalise euthanasia is before the SA Legislative Council, sponsored by Greens MP Mark Parnell.  Mr Parnell says he will put it to the vote on 28 October - in just a few weeks.  
The outcome is likely to be very close.
Our national policy officer Richard Egan has closely studied the legislation - called the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care (Voluntary Euthanasia) Amendment Bill 2008.
Richard Egan says it is one of the most reckless euthanasia bills ever proposed in Australia.  There has been no discussion in the media of its disturbing provisions.

The VoxAlert explains the problems with the bill and what we can do about it.

 

Tasmania - lesbians and 'parenthood'

The Tasmanian government is currently considering legislation that would allow the lesbian partner of a lesbian birth mother to be registered as the 'parent' of the child. The lesbian partner would be considered the co-parent rather than the child's biological father.

This destroys the ability for the child to have their biological identity recognised by society and further normalises homosexual relationships.

The legislation, called the Relationships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, passed the House of Assembly (the lower house) on August 20, 2009.

Only three MPs voted against the Bill - Liberals Will Hodgman, Rene Hidding and Brett Whiteley. We congratulate them!

The Bill then went to the Legislative Council, where it is expected to be debated in October 2009.

We sent a Media Release regarding this issue in late August. In part we state...

All children deserve the right to proper legal recognition of their mother
and father. "Tasmania's Lower House have been irresponsible towards children by giving legal recognition to lesbian partners on a child's birth certificate", said Peter Stokes, CEO of Christian Ethics group Salt Shakers. "This further compounds Tasmania's government irresponsibility by allowing same-sex partners access to IVF. No Government should make it easy for people to do the wrong thing. It is wrong for governments to endorse deliberately bringing children into this world who would not receive the immediate nurture of their biological mother and father".
We call on the Tasmanian Upper House to totally reject this Bill.

Action:

We ask all our Tasmanian readers to write to their Upper House (Legislative Council) representative.

PLEASE CALL ON THEM to reject this piece of social engineering and to put the interests of children ahead of those of selfish adults who want to rob children of their biological history and heritage.

Evidence clearly shows that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father.

No government should make it easy for people to do the wrong thing and adversely affect the most vulnerable in our society. Such action is a failure of their duty of care.

PLEASE also write to: Rene Hidding, Michael Hodgman and Brett Whiteley - the ONLY Lower House (House of Assembly) MPs to vote against the Bill. They need our support.

For MP contact details and email addresses - click here.  

Details of the legislation

To see the Bill itself and the progress of the Bill on the Tasmanian Parliament website:
Actual Bill - Relationships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill
Progress of Bill - Relationships (Miscellaneous Amendments) 40 of 2009
Date shown is when the Bill passes the particular stage.

Media reports:
Same-sex parent Bill
The Mercury, August 21, 2009.
"LEGISLATION to end discrimination against same-sex parents passed the House of Assembly yesterday. Same-sex parents cannot be by their child's side during emergency medical treatment or legally sign simple school documents, gay and lesbian advocates say. Legislation to end discrimination against same-sex couples yesterday passed its first hurdle as it was voted through the House of Assembly. 
The lengthy and sometimes emotional debate split the Liberals after party members were allowed a conscience vote. Rene Hidding, Michael Hodgman and Brett Whiteley voted against the Bill.
The Legislative Council will debate the Bill next week...." 

Hate Crime laws for Victoria

Background

In June 2009 Victoria's Attorney-General Rob Hulls announced that he planned to introduce hate crime laws that will require judges to consider 'hate' in deciding on a sentence if a crime is committed against a protected minority group - the proposed categories were race, religion, gender and sexual orientation! 

Whilst this was seen to be in response to recent attacks on Indian students, the inclusion of sexual orientation as a 'protected' category shows the real purpose of the legislation. Homosexual activists have long campaigned for such laws.
In fact they want much more. They want laws to prohibit free speech, to stop 'vilification' and so on. (See below)!

Thankfully this law does not propose 'hate speech laws'. However it is on the homosexuals' agenda...
Meanwhile this proposal is bad enough!

Hate Crime Bill introduced into Parliament
Mr Hulls introduced the Bill for 'hate crime laws' into the Victorian Parliament on 15 September 2009 and gave his second reading speech.
The Bill could be discussed as early as 13 October 2009 (the next sitting week).
Victorians - please contact your SIX MPs.

---

About the proposed legislation

The Sentencing Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Sentencing Act - it doesn't create any 'new' class of 'crime' but it requires the judge to consider the characteristics of the victim - or any group he/she may belong to - when sentencing the perpetrator.
The added clause is "whether the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred for or prejudice against a group of people with common characteristics with which the victim was associated or with which the offender believed the victim was associated".

However, even Mr Hulls acknowledged in his second reading speech that judges ALREADY consider these matters in deciding on a sentence.
He said the "Sentencing Act (Section 5-2) currently requires a court sentencing an offender to have regard to matters related to hate crimes, including: the nature and gravity of the offence; the offender's culpability; and the impact of the offence on victims."

Mr Hulls said this amendment just "reinforces the longstanding position that it is relevant for a sentencer to consider antisocial motivations of offenders." However he wants to have "explicit legislative recognition that sentencing courts must have regard to whether offences are motivated by hate for or prejudice against a particular group of people with common characteristics."

Opposing hate crime laws... our response

This Bill is a retrograde step - we need to treat ALL people equally - not favour some classes!

A crime is a crime is a crime.
All crime is wrong. All offenders should be punished.
If someone is assaulted or raped or murdered then the perpetrators should be punished.
The penalty should not be decided by referring to the status of the victim in this specific way.
Since judges can already take motive, the effect on the victim and a range of factors into consideration when deciding on sentences, this law is REDUNDANT!

The question is: Why do we need this law?
The answer? We DON'T need it!

The current law already covers this adequately - we don't need this law!

Homosexual activists want MORE!

The homosexual lobbyists have congratulated the government but note that this is a 'first step'! They want more...

Since the proposed change covers sentencing regarding crimes, it will not immediately restrict free speech - for instance speech about homosexuality.
HOWEVER homosexual activists want this covered as well.
Lyn Morgain, CEO of the ALSO Foundation, commended the government, saying "Leadership on this issue is vital to the continuing effort to reduce homophobic vilification, harassment and abuse."

However she added "There remains a long way to go and our community has been explicit in our expectation that further protection is required for affected groups; nonetheless, this demonstrates the government recognises there is a problem and is committed to helping to solve it." (emphasis added)

The Government's Plans - Mr Hulls' Media Releases

Mr Hulls' Media Release explaining the legislation:
SENTENCING ACT TO RECOGNISE IMPACT OF HATE CRIMES - 15 September 2009.

Mr Hulls' Media Release - 1 June 2009:
SENTENCING ACT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HATE CRIMES

The Legislation

Mr Hulls introduced the Bill to introduce hate crime laws into the Victorian Parliament on 15 September 2009 and gave his second reading speech.
The Bill could be discussed as early as 1 October 2009.

Parliament page for the proposed Bill

The Bill: Sentencing Amendment Bill 2009

Explanatory Memorandum (the government's description of the proposed law)

Mr Hulls' Second Reading speech in Parliament: Speech

---

ACTION

VICTORIANS - Please contact your MPs. You have ONE in the Legislative Assembly and FIVE in the Legislative Council.

Click here to find out who your MPs are and their contact details.

Please ask them not to support this 'hate crimes' law!

Media Articles:
Hulls plans hate crime crackdown, The Age , June 1, 2009.

Vic govt to move on hate crime
ABC, Tue Jun 2, 2009
"The Victorian Government is considering plans to toughen the way hate crimes are dealt with in the state..."

Homosexual media: Victoria targets gay hate crimes - MCV, 22 Sept, 2009.

Review of TV Codes of Practice

A review of the 'Code of Practice' for commercial TV is being conducted. That means the rules about what can be shown on TV, guidelines about the rating of programs and so on.

The relevant body, Free TV Australia, is conducting the review of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the Code). Free TV Australia formulates the Code of Practice - which has to then be approved and registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Free TV has a page about the Review - click here. It includes a media release, the Code and proposed amendments.

Submissions are needed!
The Code now is now open for review and Free TV Australia is receiving submissions.
Submissions close on 25 September.
See the Action section below for information on making your submission!
[The Codes of Practice and the complaints process are explained in detail on our website - click here.]
Read this excellent Action Sheet prepared by Family Voice Australia for more information.
Family Voice Action Sheet.

The Draft Code of Practice

Instead of asking people what they would like to see in the Code, Free TV has made some proposed amendments and are asking for comment.

The Review is considering matters such as "time zones and non program matter on digital multi channels, treatment of participants in reality television programs, classification criteria, non program matter, program promotions, news and current affairs programs, and complaints handling."

The proposed amendments
The draft Code of Practice with the proposed amendments included - click here.

ONE good aspect of the Review is the proposal to make tougher regulations regarding reality TV shows - saying that TV stations must not "present participants in reality television programs in a highly demeaning or highly exploitative manner."

However some items are quite concerning. In particular:

1. G-rating time removed from digital multi-channels
TV stations want to remove 'G-rated' time zones on their new digital multi-channels. (See Page 63-64, Multi Channel Appendix in link above.)

Currently regular commercial stations must show material suitable for children [classified G (general), C (children) or P (pre-school) ] from 6.00am - 8.30am and 4.00pm - 7.00pm on weekdays and from 6.00am - 10.00am on weekends.

If this proposal is adopted there would in effect be NO 'G rated' time slots on digital multi-channels - it would all be PG!

2. Removal of the word 'discreetly' regarding depictions of sex in MA category
The proposed new Code would remove the word 'discreetly' from the MA rating regarding 'sex'.
Ros Phillips of FamilyVoice Australia says: 

"Yet it was the word "discreetly" which was decisive in the ruling of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) last year - that a very explicit scene in Episode 10 of the first sleazy Californication series was not suitable for television. The stations want to delete "discreet" and allow any sex scenes, no matter how indiscreet, if they are "relevant to the storyline". But script writers can write a storyline to justify anything!" (See their VoxAlert attached)

We think the guidelines are already too lax and permissive. However the situation will get a lot worse if the word 'discreetly' is removed!

The section regarding the depiction of sex in the MA category (Section 5.2, page 32) currently says:

Sex and nudity: Visual depiction of intimate sexual behaviour (which may only be discreetly implied or discreetly simulated ) or of nudity only where relevant to the story line or program context. However, a program or program segment will not be acceptable where the subject matter serves largely or wholly as a vehicle for gratuitous, exploitative or demeaning portrayal of sexual behaviour or nudity. Exploitative or non-consenting sexual relations must not be depicted as desirable.

The Mature Audience (MA) Classification

The proposal is to change it to:
Sex and nudity: Visual depiction of intimate sexual behaviour (which may only be implied ) may contain detail but the impact shall not be high and only where relevant to the story line or program context. Visual depiction of nudity only where relevant to the story line or program context. Verbal references to sexual activity may be detailed but the impact may not be high. However, a program or program segment will not be acceptable where the subject matter serves largely or wholly as a vehicle for gratuitous, exploitative or demeaning portrayal of sexual behaviour or nudity. Exploitative or non-consenting sexual relations must not be depicted as desirable.

The proposed Code at the above link shows the CHANGES!

3. Complaints process
Some restrictions are being proposed on the process for making complaints. (See Section 7, page 58)

* Restricting the time for making a complaint to 30 days after a broadcast. Previously it said the TV station was "not obliged" to respond to a complaint made more than 30 days after a broadcast.
* Instead of just "adequately identifying" the program, the Code would now insist that the complainant include a "reference to the date and time of broadcast of the material, or in the case of a television program series, the particular episode of the series the subject of the complaint".
* Adding a requirement that the person must have watched the program in order to make a complaint!
* Previously if a complaint wrote a second letter regarding their complaint, the licensee was required to "reply substantively to the further letter, and further advise the complainant that he or she may take the complaint to the Australian Broadcasting Authority."
The proposal now says that if no new material is presented then the licensee is not required to respond.

Complaints have to be in 'writing' and this is taken to mean that emailed complaints are not accepted.
We should ask that this be changed to allow emailed complaints to TV stations.

Action - Send a submission!

Please make a submission to the inquiry into the review of the Code of Practice to Free TV Australia.

Submissions are due by 25 September.

* Please ask that G-rated times remain on digital multi-channels.

* Please ask that the word discreetly be retained in the MA classification regarding the depiction of 'sex'.

* Commend them for tightening the regulations regarding reality TV shows.

* Comment on the complaints process - ask that the proposed change about watching the program not be included. Ask that the additional information about program details not be required and ask that email complaints be received by TV stations.

Send your submission:

Free TV has a page about the Review - click here. It includes a media release, the Code and proposed amendments.

Australia - same sex 'marriage'

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young put up a bill to amend the Australian Marriage Act to legalise same-sex 'marriage' in late June.

The Bill is called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009.

The Senate sent the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for an Inquiry.

The Committee website says "This is a private senator's bill that seeks to remove all discrimination from the Marriage Act 1961 on the basis of sexuality and gender identity and to permit marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity."

If the Bill is passed, it would allow same-sex 'marriages' in Australia.

As well, the Bill "will also reverse amendments made to the Marriage Act in 2004, which not only continue to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity, but also explicitly prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country."

Click here for full details of the Inquiry on the Committee's website. 

Documents:

The actual Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 is posted online - click here to read the Bill (pdf).

The Explanatory Memorandum is also posted online. 
Information about the progress of the Bill, second reading speeches etc - click here.

The date for submissions is 28 August 2009.

The reporting date set for the Committee to report back to the Senate is 26 November 2009.

ACTION:

Please send a submission to the Inquiry being held by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

In your submission you should note that marriage must continue to remain only between a man and a woman - and that same-sex 'marriages' performed overseas should not be recognised in Australia.

You can make your submission ONLINE - click here.
Alternatively send it by email to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

OR Post to:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Phone number for the Committee: +61 2 6277 3560.