4. The national classification scheme needs to provide consumer information in a timely and clear manner, and to provide a responsive and effective means of addressing community concerns, including complaints

Due to the significance of these concepts, Free TV recommends splitting this principle into two separate principles.

Timely, clear classification advice to consumers should be the cornerstone of any classification scheme. Such advice empowers all people in Australia (including parents and carers) to make informed choices about media consumption. Free TV suggests making this statement a standalone principle, and adding the word “consistent”. One of the main benefits of the existing classification scheme is the widespread understanding of the classification levels and symbols. Introducing or maintaining different classifications for different platforms (such as AV for television) is likely to result in confusion for consumers.

A responsive, proportionate and effective means of addressing community concerns and complaints is also important, and is an area where the existing regime may benefit from increased consistency. At present, there are a range of different bodies that oversee issues of concern relating to classification, depending on where the content is viewed.

Suggested new Principle 4a: The national classification scheme needs to provide consumer information in a timely, clear and consistent manner.

Suggested new Principle 4b: The national classification scheme needs to encompass a responsive, effective and consistent means of addressing community concerns, including complaints.

It is desirable that a classification scheme should use standardised symbols and descriptions for all media being classified so the user only has to know one set of symbols. Why we need to have a Classification Board make an initial decision on some material and not others is impossible to understand. The evidence to the Senate Committee in compiling the report "Review of the National Classification Scheme: achieving the right balance" from the Outdoor Advertising industry and the Television industry clearly showed that self classification worked effectively in those industries. It is obvious from this that industry is more than capable of making the required classification in their own area of delivery. A consultative approach between the Classification Board and industry to reach a decision on boarder line decisions at no cost should be considered. Initial complaints should be to a centralised industry body about a classification and then if necessary an appeal review by the Classification Review Board. It may be worth considering using a jury system for this review. There needs to be a robust mechanism in place to ensure the review of classification ratings in a timely manner and also to penalise those rogue elements who try to circumvent the classification guidelines and also those serial vexatious complainants who waste the time of the review mechanism. The use of the classification legislation to impose censorship at the same time is a cause of confusion. Making the Classification scheme purely advisory to assist in the making of choices would greatly assist in reducing that confusion. The majority of Australians in my opinion wouldn't know what "prohibited content" was or what is contained in RC content. If they don't know that then the Classification scheme has failed to fully inform the citizens and allow them to make a free choice to see, hear and read what they want.

Yes there needs to be information provided so that content consumers can make informed choices however it is my argument which I put in my submission paper - that the classification board does not have to make most of these decisions. Countries such as the US and the UK have already established classification systems in place (on a voluntary system in the case of the US). Given that the majority of content comes from abroad, with very little actually produced in Australia, wouldn't it be wise, time effective and a money saving exercise in some sort of in principle classification system whereby Australia uses the existing rating from an approved country. Why is a US adult any different to an Australian adult or a Scottish Adult? Is there something in the Austrlaian water that will make our heads explode if we see something banned here that everyone else in the rest of the world can see? We are no different to other Western countries. This new way of operating would give the classification board more time to address public concern (often from conservative minority groups) and focus on content generated in Australia.