|
http://sourceforge.net/ <<The
innovators
The bungling bureaucracy
>>
- Community
Views - Whose Views? A Report on the OFLC 1997-9 Review of the Publications Classification Guidelines. http://www.efa.org.au/Analysis/oflcpublrev989.html Key Findings of a Review of Documents Released - The Queensland Department was unable to provide any research, by themselves or the OFLC, to support the Minister's claim that Unrestricted publications had become "raunchier". - The decision to leave the Queensland ban on Restricted (Category 1 and 2) publications in place appears to have been made by the Minister without consultation with any members of the Queensland Parliament or Queensland citizens. - A paper listing three options for Queensland censorship policy on publications, apparently prepared for the Minister in early 1999 stated, inter alia, "Many hundreds of letters recently received from consumers advocating the sale of adult material". - The OFLC received a mere 147 submissions to the Review of Publications Classification Guidelines (despite having distributed over 1400 information packages directly as well as advertising in newspapers). There is no evidence that the significantly more censorious Guidelines represent widespread community views. The probable unrepresentativeness of the submitters was raised by the OFLC's independent consultant, Professor Peter Sheehan. - 35% of submissions received were part of three localised letter writing campaigns (Wagga Wagga, Nambucca Heads and Melbourne) and over half of these commented mainly on their concern over sex and violence on television, not in publications. - 42% of the groups who lodged submissions were clearly identifiable as religious groups. 86% of the individuals (including letter writing campaigns) were readily identifiable as pro-censorship. Three occupational categories recurred among this group: teachers (primary school), counsellors, and priests or religious ministers. - Some OFLC claims about community views are not supported by their own 85 page Analysis of the submissions. - While historically it has been claimed that the Commonwealth's role is solely that of classification, leaving enforcement relative to sale and distribution to the States and Territories, the OFLC sought and received approval for an increased OFLC role in enforcement. - There are indications that a lowest common denominator approach, based on State/Territory policy, is being implemented in Commonwealth law. |
