Senate Questions on Notice
re classification of Internet content
and SA Net Censorship Bill

On 5 April 2001, Senator Brian Grieg (Democrats) placed questions on notice to the Minister representing the Attorney-General in the Senate, regarding classification of Internet content by the OFLC in relation to the SA Net censorship Bill.

On 10 April 2001, the OFLC Policy Manager informed EFA's Executive Director that the questions had been received by the OFLC on 9 April and the OFLC would be preparing answers for the Minister.

In accord with Senate Standing Orders and practice, Ministers are expected to answer Questions on Notice within 30 days. (For information about Questions on Notice see: Senate Brief No. 12 and Odgers' Australian Senate Practice Section 19.7.)

However, 2 months later (as at 5 June), the Minister had not provided answers.

Meanwhile the SA Attorney-General continued to state that the OFLC currently provided a classification service for Internet content providers, etc. If the SA Attorney-General's statement was factual, one would expect that the Questions on Notice could have easily been answered by the OFLC and Minister representing the Federal Attorney-General in compliance with the Senate Thirty Day Rule, that is by 5 May 2001.

Answers were finally provided on 25 June 2001, see separate page.

[Extract from Senate Notice Paper]

Notice given 5 April 2001
...

        3564 Senator Greig: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General

        (1) Was the Director of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) consulted by the South Australian Government on the provisions of the On-line Services section (Part 7A) of the South Australian Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2000 prior to the bills introduction into the South Australian Parliament in November 2000.

        (2) If the Director was not consulted prior to the bills introduction, was the Director subsequently consulted; if so, on what date.

        (3) If the OFLC was consulted either before or after the bills introduction, did the OFLC raise any matters that would need to be addressed and resolved regarding the OFLCs ability to provide online publishers with a classification certificate for Internet content; if so, what matters did the OFLC raise.

        (4) Has the OFLC been providing a classification service for existing Internet content to online publishers to date.

        (5) Has the OFLC been providing a classification service for proposed Internet content to online publishers to date.

        (6) If the OFLC presently provides a classification service for existing and/or proposed Internet content to online publishers:

        (a) is the service available for existing or proposed Internet content, or both;

        (b) on what dates did the OFLC commence providing these services;

        (c) (i) what is the procedure for applying for classification of Internet content, and (ii) has this procedure been made known to the public in legislation or elsewhere;

        (d) what procedure does the OFLC have in place to enable them to identify whether the OFLC has issued a classification certificate applicable to particular Internet content, for example, where content is subsequently moved to a new address/hosting location on the Internet as a result of the publishers content host/ISP ceasing operations;

        (e) what is the amount of the fee charged to online publishers for classification of Internet content consisting of a web page containing solely of text and non-moving images;

        (f) is the classification fee referred to in (e) prescribed in the Schedule to the Commonwealth classification regulations; if so, is the fee based on running time of a film (minimum $770) or is the fee that is applicable to publications such as magazines and books ($130); and

        (g) if the fee is not prescribed in the regulations, why not.

        (7) If the OFLC has not provided a classification service to online publishers to date, in relation to the proposed amendments to the South Australian classification act:

        (a) does the OFLC intend to commence classifying Internet content after material has been placed online, or require content to be provided to the OFLC by post on portable media, etc.;

        (b) what procedure does the OFLC intend to establish to enable them to identify whether the OFLC has issued a classification certificate applicable to particular Internet content, for example, where content is subsequently moved to a new address/hosting location on the Internet as a result of the publishers content host/ISP ceasing operations, etc.;

        (c) what is the amount of the fee to be charged to online publishers for classification of Internet content consisting of a web page containing solely of text and non-moving images;

        (d) is the classification fee referred to in (c) prescribed in the Schedule to the Commonwealth classification regulations; if so, is the fee based on running time of a film (minimum $770) or is the fee that is applicable to publications such as magazines and books ($130); and

        (e) if the fee is not prescribed in the regulations, or is the fee applicable to films, is it intended to prescribe new fees applicable to Internet content.

        (8) (a) What are the amounts of classification fees for various types of Internet content (for example, moving images, non-moving images, text, etc) charged by the OFLC to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Broadcasting Services Act; and (b) are these fees prescribed in the Commonwealth classification regulations; if not, why not.