Barker Rick: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2456] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I think the points raised by Peter Brown require a response. Mr Brown correctly said that the appointment of the Film and Literature Board of Review was overdue and I accept that. It has not been because of oversight or slovenly action; a sequence of events has brought this about. 
Firstly a review of the legislation was considered by Parliament in 2005. Whilst that Parliament was considering that legislation the then Minister of Internal Affairs felt it was inappropriate to change the board at that time. Once the legislation had been through we were then within the shadow of the 2005 election and the Minister—quite correctly I believe—said that because the election was so imminent it would be inappropriate for him to appoint the incoming board. So we held it off until after the election. After the election there was a process of consultation and things were held up by the Christmas break but the process is almost complete. I did say to Mr Brown that we hope to have the matter concluded by April and I am still hopeful of that. 
The issue here is about what is objectionable and what is not. I say to Mr Brown who has been to see me on this issue that I accept the passion of his advocacy on these issues. I do not doubt for one moment his sincerity whatsoever. But the point I have made to the member on a couple of occasions is that despite the fact I am the Minister responsible for the portfolio I do not consider myself particularly expert in making these decisions. I want to consider that we have a process that is robust but I have also to accept my personal limitations. 
There is a range of factors here. First let us accept that the standards of what are acceptable and objectionable today differ from those when I was growing up in the 1960s. Things have moved on and they will continue to move on. Second when one is making judgments about things one’s relative age comes into it. It has always been accepted that young people have a love of the new and that old people have a fear of the new. So there is tension in society between the attitude of the younger generation and that of the older generation. I can see this when I go to films with my daughter. Some of the films I do not particularly like but she says to me: “Don’t be silly that was just make-believe. Don’t be daft about these things.” I feel a bit uncomfortable about this so I have to accept the limitations of my perspective on life because of the situation I am in. 
We have to find the best people that we think we can. But more important we have to have a robust process and make sure it is well founded. I have been through the Office of Film and Literature Classification carefully and I have spoken to all the staff. I have found that one of the processes they use is to invite members of the public to come and review a film before it is given a classification. The censor then sets out what issues are to be considered and invites the public to make its determination on what classification the film should have. I think this is a very interesting process and is one I was unaware of before. I have said to the board that I want to go along and observe indirectly for myself—I have offered Mr Peter Brown the same opportunity and I would offer other members of the House the opportunity to go too—because I think it is important to try to figure out whether this process has got it right and just to be convinced that there is a process. 
I cannot allow my own personal views to cloud what others see because the other fundamental point we need to make here is that we are in a democracy. One of the fundamental tenets of a democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is wrong for us to curtail other people’s rights and freedom of speech and their freedom to see what they choose to see—but of course there are exceptions. The exceptions are when the film is about exploitation degradation humiliation and all of those things. We have to set a line at which point we say we will not go across but we have to be very careful I say to Mr Brown when we set that line because if we allow the line to be moved vicariously and at the will of an individual we will then cut away from people their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We should always defend those rights because it is absolutely fundamental to a democracy that people have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. 
I make the other point to Mr Brown that I think he should congratulate the Department of Internal Affairs on the excellent work it has been doing on catching people who are forwarding objectionable material on the Internet. 
Report noted.