Barbara Biggins OAM CF, is CMA’s Honorary CEO.

What should classification reform look like?

Submissions on the federal government’s Consultation Paper:  Modernising Australia’s Classification Scheme – Stage 2 Reforms, closed on May 30.

CMA has been pushing for reforms of the present classification scheme for over 15 years, arguing that the scheme was not evidence-based and did not meet one of its basic principles – that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them.

In this editorial, we bring you an extract from CMA’s submission to this consultation.   In future issues of small screen we will update readers on progress of this review.

“In its work, CMA is always guided by child development research and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has widespread acceptance throughout the international community, with more signatories than any other international agreement. Australia has obligations under the Convention in any case, but CMA submits that the strong acceptance of the norms it embraces should provide a further impetus for the Government to look closely at the provisions of the Convention and use them to shape the National Classification Scheme…

…in short, the message… from many who have a profound understanding of children’s rights, is that children have a right to access screen-based services, but to do so safely – that is, in ways which do not undermine their healthy development. The NCS should include measures to make this a reality, including legislation and regulation, but also the allocation of resources to support parents and carers in using the NCS recommendations in their own local context…..

As the Consultation Paper rightly states: ‘Australians need to have confidence in the classification system as a trusted source of information to guide their choices regardless of platform’ (p8). This should be the key objective of these reforms.

To achieve this objective, there needs to be systematic analysis to determine what sort of system, structure and components are required. The objective will not be achieved without such analysis. 

1. If users, and parents and carers of children who are users, of screens, games and publications are to have confidence and trust in a classification system, it needs to:

• be evidence-based, utilising the latest research on potential harm (especially to children, across their age-ranges), plus identify the types of content likely to cause significant offence to adults;
• produce outputs that are useful for all users;
• enable outputs to be produced comprehensively and in a timely fashion;
• be responsive to feedback on these outputs, and be able to act swiftly on such feedback; and
• be a single system which is uniformly applied to all screen platforms and publications in Australia.

2. If the screen, game and publication industries are to be willing and able to apply such a classification system, it needs to:

• produce information that consumers need, in a timely fashion;
• cope with large numbers of products needing to be classified;
• provide tools that enable, via a process based on evidence, objective assessments by trained classifiers;
• provide training to industry classifiers in the use of the tools;
• incorporate quality assurance processes;
• ensure that the tools are capable of application as an online process.

It is evident that the present classification scheme lacks many of these components.

Presently, classification in Australia:

• involves a range of codes, guides and tools for classification used by national and commercial broadcasters, pay TV, Clearads (for commercials), IARC and some streaming services and online stores;
• lacks a clear evidence base developed using current relevant research;
• lacks any components that could provide such a base;
• lacks a sufficient quality assurance process;
• is unable to respond to complaints, to new developments or to research in a timely fashion;
• allows some platforms to use their own classification scheme; and
• lacks a process for regular reviews of consumer satisfaction with the system.

Systematic analysis of the above objective, consumer needs and required outputs, along with a need for all the disparate components of such a system to work together to achieve the objective, leads to the conclusion that this is best achieved by the establishment of a single regulator.

The regulator needs to be advised by a scientific committee which:

• has the expertise to review the relevant research;
• is tasked with advising on the development and periodic review of a set of classification categories and criteria that reflect that research; and
• advises on the development and review of an online tool for each of films, games and publications. (Tool = a set of research-based factors for consideration when establishing each classification category and the associated criteria, and which are incorporated into software used by trained assessors to produce the relevant classification for each product).

The regulator must also:

• be responsible for the facilitation of use (via training) and quality control of the application of the tool;
• be able to receive and rapidly review all complaints about classification decisions across all media platforms; and
• regularly review consumer satisfaction with the system.

CMA anticipates that such reform could open the way to great improvements to the present NCS as a system and to the benefits it would deliver to the Australian people.”

*************************************