Robots

The National Robotics Strategy Paper released today is to be used to: 

•  set out a vision for the robotics sector in Australia including the value of the domestic market for robotics and automation, and the contribution of these enabling capabilities to the economy 
• address challenges across the national robotics and automation ecosystem, including challenges regarding growth, talent, collaboration, cohesion, workforce impacts, public trust and approval 
• articulate the potential role of robotics and automation in the government’s agendas for the economy, revitalising manufacturing, jobs and skills. 

The government states

While recognising the tremendous opportunities from the production and adoption of robotics and automation, the government is aware of concerns in the community regarding the potential impact that increased adoption of robotics may have on people and on jobs in certain sectors. A key focus of this discussion paper is to explore these views so that we can work to address these concerns and best support Australian workers and communities and create job opportunities. 

The Paper identifies four key themes "from the advice of the advisory committee and the conversations we have had to date with industry, researchers and the broader public": 1. National capability 2. Trust, inclusion and responsible development and use 3. Skills and diversity 4. Increasing adoption 

  Theme 1: National capability Growing Australia’s national capability in robotics and fostering a robotics ecosystem will be critical to growing and improving the complexity of our economy. This will depend on the success of Australia’s robotics research and development, and the commercialisation of this technology. Strengths in enabling areas, such as AI and machine learning research, provide competitive advantages to Australia. A thriving robotics ecosystem would support local companies in these enabling fields, by creating highly valuable robotics markets and increased onshore manufacturing. This provides greater opportunity for collaboration and increases the feasibility of receiving intellectual property protections – such as patents – in hardware-based innovations, relative to those that are software-based. 

From our consultation to date, key areas of focus identified by industry that would help build our national capability include: • demonstrating to Australian businesses across a range of industries the potential use cases and commercial benefits from adopting trusted Australian robotics and automation solutions • improving collaboration across industries and between industry and research organisations • boosting coordination across state and territory governments and the Australian Government to identify shared national robotics priorities and ensure that legislative frameworks are fit for purpose • increasing attraction of domestic and foreign investment, especially at the seed and startup stages • filling gaps in national robotics supply chains, which can hinder Australian companies from scaling up robotic solutions or engaging in end-to-end manufacturing. 

We have heard from researchers and industry of challenges in commercialising their innovations. Australia’s venture capital investment in advanced robotics, while ranked seventh internationally, is only a fraction of that of leaders such as the US, China and Israel. This leads to lower levels of commercialisation, with Australia ranked 14th in patent filing. 

Australia’s relatively small market size and available capital may present barriers for some Australian robotics businesses seeking to commercialise their intellectual property or scale up their business. This may be compounded by the high level of investment needed to develop and test many robotic solutions. On the other hand, our close proximity to large Asian markets, along with similarities to United States and European markets, can help make Australia’s exports internationally competitive. 

Australia’s large land mass and low population density provide opportunities for testing of particular robotics solutions, and can encourage collaboration between international and local research institutions and industry. The development and use of remote test beds in consultation and collaboration with traditional owners and native title holders could create new opportunities for robotics development in Australia. 

The government is committed to investing in boosting Australian industry’s capability in developing emerging technologies, including robotics technologies, to support local talent, local ideas and local commercialisation. The National Reconstruction Fund has $1 billion targeted towards investments in critical technologies. The Buy Australia Plan, including the establishment of the Future Made in Australia Office, will support the creation of new firms and strengthen existing ones by leveraging Australian Government spending. 

Theme 2: Trust, inclusion and responsible development and use 

The success of the robotics ecosystem in Australia depends on ensuring public trust and support of robotics and automation. For the opportunities of robotics and automation to be realised, the development and adoption of these technologies needs to accord with settings promoting trustworthy, ethical and responsible use. 

There has been a popular conception of robots replacing or taking the jobs of humans since the term ‘robot’ originated in the early 20th century. These perceptions are strengthened by popular culture and portrayals of humanoid robots well beyond current technical limitations. The reality of the development and deployment of robots and their impact on the workplace is much more nuanced. 

While the adoption of robotics and automation may disrupt or change particular tasks in certain industries, research indicates that robotics will lead to a net growth in jobs by complementing and improving the productivity and job growth of many sectors. Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that countries that have invested more in robotics have experienced higher levels of employment growth. Industry has indicated it is only through the adoption of robotics and automation that they have been able to expand their operations and perform, for example, manufacturing tasks that would otherwise have been completed overseas.  

It is important that industry and government understand changes brought about from the adoption of robotics and automation. For decision makers in industry considering adopting robotics and automation technologies, the potential benefits of adoption need to be clear. Before committing to the expense, they will need to understand how these technologies will help them: • deliver better products and services • improve productivity • better respond to customer needs • be more competitive • be an attractive place to work or • grow their customer and employee base. 

That is, industry will need to be able to trust that there will be a positive return on their investment. Regulatory settings, standards, reliability, interoperability and robust cyber security arrangements can help foster this trust. Given Australia’s reputation as a trusted source of technology and a leading safety regulator, there is an opportunity for Australia to become a leader in the lawful, ethical and responsible development and use of robotics and automation. 

We have heard from stakeholders that public trust and understanding remain large barriers to increased adoption. We have been told that people are more likely to trust technology when: • they feel in control of setting up the system themselves • they understand and can see how the technology has practical benefits for their individual circumstances • the adoption of the technology is normalised. 

It is also important to consider the impact of these technologies on the broader community, including those not directly involved in their development and use. There is a role for all in the national robotics ecosystem to play in increasing trust and promoting demonstrable benefits to Australians through the adoption of robotics. 

There is an opportunity to improve public education around the role and application of robotics in industry and society. Showcasing positive examples of robotics and automation, including the specific benefits this has had on the workforce, as well as broader social and environmental benefits, will help build this knowledge and trust. 

The robotics industry needs to deliberately consider trustworthy, lawful, ethical and responsible development and use of robotics and automation technologies. This could include researchers, engineers, businesses and training providers working closely with social scientists and ethicists. Ensuring all parts of the robotics ecosystem have a diverse workforce will help assist in developing technology that is inclusive and fit for purpose. Feedback mechanisms that provide an opportunity for community concerns to be identified and addressed will also support this.

Theme 3: Skills and diversity 

We need to build on the pool of smart, innovative Australians excited about robotics to support a thriving robotics sector, and support adoption of these technologies. This includes building a diverse workforce that can develop robotics and automation technology to service the diverse needs across Australia. Training, attracting and retaining talent locally will assist in attracting investment and help drive the domestic startup ecosystem. 

Australia’s technical expertise is well-regarded internationally. Our vocational institutions are highly regarded and our universities are highly ranked, and as a result our graduates are sought after by overseas companies and research institutions. In particular, Australia has world-leading expertise in field robotics, including autonomous underwater vehicles and drones. However, we have heard from stakeholders that domestic industry, especially startups, cannot always offer the same salaries and opportunities that large overseas companies can, leading to local talent going abroad. 

We have heard from companies developing and adopting robotics that a range of skills and vocational training levels are required in the workforce. Some roles may require tertiary or post-graduate degrees, but in many others, it is trade or vocational skills, or those that can be learnt through on-the-job training. In the resources sectors, for example, tailored courses have been developed to upskill and train existing staff in the use of robotics. This not only provides workers with the skills they need, but allows them to see themselves working with new technologies, and to understand the impact on their work and the benefits from adoption. 

As improvements are made to robotics interfaces and usability, particularly in cobotics, the barriers to using and adopting robotics may be further lowered. More broadly, improvements in digital and technical literacy will increase the awareness of robotics and automation technologies in workplaces and board rooms. 

The growth of Australia’s robotics and broader tech ecosystem would benefit from an increase in STEM graduates at both tertiary and vocational levels. As highlighted through roundtables for the Jobs and Skills Summit, more needs to be done to encourage STEM at all levels of schooling and education, including fostering interest in STEM amongst primary school children. At the other end of the talent pipeline, Australia has a distinctive opportunity to build graduates and workers who are skilled in the translation of STEM and social sciences, law and ethics. To support robotics, organisations may require staff with expertise in building public trust and approval, and expertise in the lawful, ethical and responsible development and use of robotics. 

Skilled migration provides another method of securing a talented local workforce in addition to domestic training and education opportunities. Opportunities may come from the employment of skilled migrants in their areas of expertise, and from providing sufficient opportunity for people with skills not available locally to come to Australia or stay in Australia if they have been trained here. The maturity of the robotics industry could also be improved by attracting back the talented Australians that are overseas and who may be unaware of the growing Australian robotics industry. 

The Australian robotics industry would benefit from improved diversity. There is a role for government to encourage diversity in STEM and other fields relevant to development and adoption of robotics in society, aimed both at higher education and life-long learning, with a focus on reskilling and upskilling. More could be done to increase the number of women, First Australians and other historically underrepresented groups in the robotics industry. 

The government has already taken steps to address these challenges. The Diversity in STEM Review, being undertaken by an independent expert panel, will identify barriers to participation and retention, review how current programs are performing and recommend ways to improve participation. The Digital and Tech Skills Compact, announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit, affirms commitment from industry, government and unions to cooperate to help address skill shortages and grow the Australian tech sector. 

As with many technologies, the introduction of robotics and automation will change the way we work. Creating an agile, well-trained workforce will benefit the entire economy as it is predicted that all industry sectors will require increased technological skills in the future. There is a role for industry and government to provide training pathways to support the workforce of the future. 

Theme 4: Increasing adoption 

The benefits of robotics and automation are far reaching. For many industries in Australia, robotics and automation will not only make work more efficient, cost-effective and productive, but also safer and higher quality for their workforce. Through the strategy, we are seeking to support Australian businesses to adopt and integrate robotics into existing business practices, to solve specific business needs and realise the benefits that robotics and automation can provide. 

We are in a good position to spread robotics across the economy where it makes business sense, starting from the sectors that are already leading in uptake and automation. Australia is currently world-leading in the adoption of whole-of-system automation solutions in resources and mining sectors, improving the safety of work in these industries by removing the need for humans to be exposed to dangerous environments or to perform unsafe tasks. We also lead in remote operations, both in operation of mining equipment and in space operations, lending us the experience and expertise to more broadly utilise these field robotics technologies. 

However, in other areas of the economy, Australia lags in robotics adoption. For example, we are behind other OECD member countries in the adoption of industrial robots, which are typically used in manufacturing, with Australia’s annual installations of industrial robots ranked 30th globally in 2021. 

Other sectors, including agriculture and health, have started adopting robotics and automation. In these sectors there is potential for greater adoption to assist with addressing business challenges including workforce shortages and supply demands, and to improve reliability, productivity and sustainability. In healthcare, robotics can assist surgeons to perform surgeries with more precision and efficiency, potentially decreasing surgery waiting times and increasing the time doctors and nurses have to spend with patients. In agriculture, autonomous ground vehicles are being employed to work fields, while drone technology is being deployed in monitoring and surveillance. Meanwhile, autonomous underwater vessels will increasingly be used in management of fisheries. Examples of other sectors where robotics and automation are being used include aerospace, logistics, mineral extraction and emergency management, potentially making these sectors safer, more productive and more internationally competitive. 

Despite the benefits robotics can bring to sectors across the Australian economy, Australian businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, currently face challenges in adopting and integrating these technologies into their operations. We are seeking to better understand and identify ways to resolve these barriers to adoption. 

Australian robotics producers have told us that there is a low level of awareness across some sectors of the advantages that robotics and automation can afford businesses, limiting companies from investing in robotics. We have also heard from some businesses adopting robotics that they prefer to import well known solutions from abroad, rather than spend perceived additional time or take on perceived greater risk working with a local manufacturer. 

Despite many long-term benefits, there are short-term costs and risks for companies when established business processes are disrupted in order to adopt new processes and technologies, including robotics and automation. For small and medium enterprises in particular, this can be a significant barrier to adoption. We have heard from businesses that have realised significant benefits from adopting robotics that the initial adoption period required investment in training, work health and safety, and updating procedures. There may be other instances where the scale of operations or other considerations in particular sectors or businesses are such that, at this point in time, the return on investment from robotics and automation is not yet commercially viable. 

Regulations and standards have a role in providing certainty to businesses so they have confidence to use different technologies in their business processes. We have heard from stakeholders that in some instances, standards and regulations have not kept up with technological changes. Legal frameworks and regulations at times do not extend to robotics, leaving businesses using robotics open to increased uncertainty and potential liability. Additionally, some current industry and workplace health and safety standards do not consider robotics in the workplace or address interoperability that would ensure hardware, software and enterprise systems are compatible.

Personality

In 'Rawls and Animal Moral Personality' by Guy Baldwin in (2023) 13(7) Animals Baldwin comments 

“Moral personality” is required in order to be entitled to justice in John Rawls’s theory of justice, a famous and influential theory in political philosophy. The concept of moral personality involves the possession of two “moral powers”. One moral power is a capacity for a conception of the good, being a conception of what is regarded as worthwhile in life, while the other is a capacity for a sense of justice. Rawls claims that non-human animals (hereafter, “animals”) do not possess these moral powers, and accordingly he omits them altogether from his theory of justice. In this article, I raise doubts about this omission, outlining how at least some animals may indeed possess the moral powers, albeit to a lesser extent than most humans. In this regard, the distinction between humans and animals can be seen as one of degree rather than kind. A proper acknowledgement of animal abilities suggests that Rawls’s theory requires alteration to accommodate the position of animals. 

The relationship between animal rights and contractarian theories of justice such as that of Rawls has long been vexed. In this article, I contribute to the debate over the possibility of inclusion of animals in Rawls’s theory of justice by critiquing the rationale he gives for their omission: that they do not possess moral personality. Contrary to Rawls’s assumptions, it appears that some animals may possess the moral powers that comprise moral personality, albeit to a lesser extent than most humans. Some animals can act in pursuit of preferences and desires (and communicate them non-verbally), which might be taken as implicitly selecting a conception of the good; further, scientific research demonstrating inequity aversion and social play behaviors suggests that some animals can have a sense of justice relating to their own social groups. I conclude that Rawls’s theory needs to acknowledge any animals that can be considered to meet the threshold of moral personality, while the concept of moral personality as a range property may also require reconsideration. 

A limitation of John Rawls’s theory of justice is that the position of non-human animals (hereafter, “animals”) is treated as outside the scope of the theory. Although Rawls considered cruelty towards animals and the destruction of an entire species to be wrong, animals are said not to be entitled to justice [1] (pp. 441–442, 448–449). The reason offered for this exclusion is that animals are not “moral persons”. Moral personality involves two moral powers—the capacity for a conception of the good and the capacity for a sense of justice—that are claimed to be uniquely human attributes. Rawls’s position seems to mean that, as Martha Nussbaum puts it, “[e]ven … the twentieth century’s greatest philosopher of justice … held that it was virtuous to treat animals with compassion, but that they could not be treated justly or unjustly” [2] (pp. 8–9). The relationship between animal rights and contractarian theories of justice such as that of Rawls has long been vexed; a key difficulty is how to include animals in such theories if they are unable to participate effectively in the making of a social contract [3]. Mark Rowlands argues that “there is nothing in contractarianism per se that requires the contract be restricted to rational agents”; even if the framers of the contract have to be rational agents, its recipients do not (p. 236). Meanwhile, Robert Garner claims that Rawls’s approach cannot adequately explain the position of “those humans who are less endowed with rationality or autonomy”, invoking the well-known argument from so-called “marginal cases” [4] (p. 7), though he has also critiqued this argument [5]. The contribution of this article is to consider a different, under-explored issue: the merits of Rawls’s claim that animals do not have moral personality, which underpins their exclusion from his theory of justice. 

In ascribing moral personality only to humans, Rawls treats humans and animals as qualitatively different. Rawls’s concept of moral personality is widely assumed to “clearly preclude animals” [6] (pp. 2–3). However, as Rowlands says, “the all or nothing manner in which discussions of non-human rationality tend to be discussed is eminently questionable, on both theoretical and methodological grounds” (p. 236). Indeed, I argue that some animals might be better viewed as possessing moral personality, though to a more limited extent than most humans. The difference between humans and animals in this regard may be thought of as one of degree rather than kind, to adopt Charles Darwin’s words [7] (p. 179). Nonetheless, acknowledgment of the lesser degree of moral personality possessed by some animals is likely to require significant alterations to Rawls’s theory. Although I seek to establish some problems with Rawls’s account, modifying the theory to accommodate the possibility of animal moral personality is not attempted here. Further, I do not suggest that possession of some measure of moral personality means that animals (or, for that matter, humans) cannot or do not perform acts that inflict suffering on others. xx The article proceeds in three parts. First, I address Rawls’s analysis of the position of animals in his theory. As will be shown, Rawls’s theory is already consistent with the view that animals are owed moral concern. Nothing prevents legislators from protecting animal welfare or rights. However, Rawls considers that due to their claimed absence of moral personality, animals are not owed justice, and this may mean that animal protection is of lower priority than the principles of justice. Second, I question Rawls’s approach by analyzing the position of animals in respect of each of the moral powers. I suggest that Rawls’s conclusion that animals do not have moral personality is too simple; there is reason to consider that at least some animals can potentially possess the moral powers, albeit to a lesser degree than humans. Third, I conclude with a short reflection on the possible implications of this analysis for Rawls’s theory.

Undead

In Richard v Beresford [2023] NZHC 500 McQueen J addressed a stranger than usual sovereign citizen claim. 

The judgment states 

 [1] On 1 March 2023, “richard”, described as the “complainant”, presented to the Wellington High Court a “Bill in Chancery” (which I will refer to as “the claim”) together with an unsworn affidavit in support. The matter has been referred to me as Duty Judge by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. ...   

The claim 

[6] The claim is lengthy and sometimes difficult to understand. It does not comply with the High Court Rules 2016 and indeed asserts that Court rules are not to apply. It appears to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The complainant wishes to have the claim determined in a court “of Chancery”, notwithstanding that no such court exists (or has ever existed) in New Zealand, in which the courts have a “fused jurisdiction”, meaning the ability to exercise both common law and equitable jurisdiction. 

[7] There is an immediate issue in that the complainant and the defendant are the same person. This is a result of what the complainant has described as the distinction between himself as “Richard” and the legal entity “RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD”, which he considers was created at the time of his birth through his birth certificate. This is presumably why the defendant is named as being “RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD c/- Registrar General of New Zealand”, which is likely intended to refer to the Registrar-General charged with the administration of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Act 1995. 

[8] The complainant appears to seek that the legal entity “RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD” as described in his birth certificate have its status changed from “living” to “deceased”, because:

The self-evident truth of the matter is that the extra feto embryonic material and placenta also born slightly later on that day also died on that day, it died by abortion and an act of violence with a weapon, died prematurely as an act of, maybe unwittingly by the assaulter, of intentional premeditated interference in the divine natural order of life, depriving me of my due remaining sustenance. Regardless i [sic] survived the premature abortion of my sustaining organ, whole, but at the end of the day, thankfully, my extra feto embryonic material and placenta became deceased. As the registered event entity is deceased, it [is] now required, pertaining to 88 of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Handbook on Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems, Management, Operation and Maintenance, revision 1, New York, 2021, and as a function of the civil registration component, that the assigned PIN of the deceased person RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD, be changed, by retirement of the PIN of RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD by flagging the PIN or changing its status from “living” to “deceased”, as prescribed by law. 

[9] Claims such as the present one are characteristic of the consent-based Sovereign Citizen, “dual personality” or “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) theories that have been consistently rejected by the courts as legally untenable and “without legal foundation”. 

[10] Pseudolegal claims:

...[mirror and co-opt] the language, forms and structures of legal reasoning [but lack] substantive engagement with the core norms, principles and methods of legal reasoning. Proponents of pseudolaw appear to have a genuine belief that their doctrines represent the ‘true’ position of the law where more ‘mainstream’ approaches have become illegitimate for some reason(s). This means that adherents can disregard existing legal norms while simultaneously retaining of a self-conception of lawfulness and righteousness. 

[11] Such claims are undoubtedly damaging, and are a growing issue across the common law world. As has recently been stated, pseudolaw:

...hurts litigants, their families (whānau), and friends. Litigants employing pseudolaw waste time and money. They forego the opportunities to obtain capable legal representation. It creates opportunities for scammers and charlatans. Pseudolaw is also harmful to the proper administration of justice. Legitimate legal issues may be buried under pseudolegal gibberish and could be dismissed too hastily.

[12] In line with this approach, the Sovereign Citizen or “dual personality” pseudolegal belief is that “sovereign” individuals are not bound by the laws of the jurisdiction in which they reside unless they waive their rights and accept a contract with the government. Litigants who ascribe to this belief typically write their names in a non-standard fashion, thereby seeking to demonstrate that they do not consent to the Court’s authority. 

[13] The part of the complainant’s claim that seeks to change his birth status from “living” to “deceased” appears to me to seek that this Court engage in legitimising that theory, essentially to validate the complainant’s position that the law only applies to fictional legal personalities, rather than natural persons. It appears that the complainant believes that:

Because every person has inalienable, natural rights, governments must assert their authority over natural or ‘flesh and blood’ persons to make them subjects. Governments do that, for example, when a birth certificate, bank account, driver’s licence, or government identity is issued. Those actions create an ‘artificial’ person – a legal person, personality, corporation, or ‘strawman’ – over whom the government and its agencies, which are parallel corporate forms, have jurisdiction. The crucial aspect is that the natural or living man or woman is freed from government subjection when they assert their status, claim it, and prove it.

[14] This is clear in the naming of the parties in the complainant’s claim. He, as a ‘natural person’, seeks to be divorced from the “artificial” conception of him as a legal person, which he believes is embodied in his birth certificate.   The complainant seeks the same outcome for his five children. 

[15] The complainant also seeks orders including:

(a) the granting of probate for the estate of the deceased person RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD, and also his five children, on the basis that they are all deceased persons; 

(b) primary care of his children, notwithstanding that it appears their mother, his ex-partner, presently has primary care of them; 

(c) counsel and resources to assist him to obtain primary care of his children; 

(d) an order that his ex-partner return to Wellington with his children; 

(e) an order that enables him to choose and commission a therapist or counsellor for his children; 

 (f) an order that removes or discharges the matters in CRI-2021-096-3103, and CIV-2021-485-502; 

(g) if he is “deemed [to] have behaved unlawfully”, an order to bring him before a “proper” court of law; 

(h) an order to provide him with evidence relating to his ex-partner that would assist the court; 

(i) an order that his children are not to be involved in “exploitation involving slavery or death of our neighbours”; 

(j) an order that he and his children are not to be subject to “any weapons of war”; and 

(k) an order that any order made applies to his children until they are 21- years-old.

[16] The complainant also records that he will “give up and forsake everything the commercial world has offered and given to [him]”. 

[17] The complainant provided an affidavit in support of his claim, which was not sworn or witnessed. The content of that document largely contains quotes from various sources, including but not limited to the Bible, Shakespeare, Francis Bacon, Webster’s Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, the Oxford Dictionary, and Butterworths New Zealand Law Dictionary. The exhibits attached to that affidavit contained further quotes from other sources, which the complainant seems to consider support his claim, as well as the birth certificates of him and his children. The affidavit also includes what appears to be correspondence with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in which DIA has declined the complainant’s request to discharge certain public records. 

Analysis 

[18] The complainant’s claim does not articulate any valid cause of action and seeks orders that the Court is unable to grant. Chief among the barriers to the complainant’s claim is the view that his birth certificate can be changed to say that he is dead, when he is plainly very much alive. The same applies as in respect of his children. ...

Ontologies

'Connecting Science to Indigenous Knowledge: kaitiakitanga, conservation, and resource management' by Tara McAllister, Daniel Hikuroa and Cate Macinnis-Ng in (2023) 47(1) New Zealand Journal of Ecology 3521 comments 

Indigenous Knowledge (IK) provides effective solutions to environmental threats and pressures. Using approaches that fully include Indigenous concepts, ideas, worldviews, knowledge, process, and practice helps the recovery of threatened species and endangered ecosystems, but it is essential that such work engages with Indigenous Peoples and that engagement is respectful, reciprocal, and meaningful. We support using mātauranga (Māori knowledge, culture, values, and worldview) alongside science, because incorporating socio-cultural perspectives and initiatives allows sustainability to be addressed in a more holistic way. This collaborative group of Māori and Pākehā researchers brings a range of perspectives and expertise to the challenge of working at the interface of IK and science, and practices of conservation and resource management. In developing a deeper understanding of kaitiakitanga, which is often translated as “guardianship”, “stewardship”, or the “principle and practices of intergenerational sustainability”, when working in partnership with Māori, Western-trained scientists can meaningfully acknowledge Māori values, knowledge, process, and practice in their work. This enhanced consideration of kaitiakitanga requires bringing together intricately linked concepts such as whakapapa, rangatiratanga, mana, mauri, tapu, noa, and manaakitanga. In this paper, we aim to guide Western-trained scientists and other practitioners in understanding kaitiakitanga so that they can meaningfully engage through an enhanced understanding of Māori worldviews, knowledge, process, and practice. We also aim to highlight the synergies and differences between kaitiakitanga and conservation and resource management, whilst providing examples of how kaitiakitanga can be used to enhance conservation for holistic sustainability outcomes. We emphasise the benefits and importance of working with Māori communities for long-term partnerships based on mutual trust and respect.

The authors argue 

Aotearoa New Zealand’s already stressed natural environment is facing increasing threats and pressures (Brown et al. 2015; Norton et al. 2016; Ministry for the Environment & StatsNZ 2022). Invasive species, destructive fishing practices, extractive industries, a changing climate, and intensification of agriculture are examples of processes that are causing ongoing environmental degradation (Brake and Peart 2015; Clarkson et al. 2015; OECD 2017; Macinnis-Ng et al. 2021; Ministry for the Environment & StatsNZ 2022). We need to acknowledge customary ways to conserve threatened species and endangered ecosystems and enact resource management because the current methods and/or their implementation often exclude Indigenous peoples (e.g. Ruru et al. 2017). Using mātauranga (Māori knowledge, culture, values, and worldview) alongside science is an effective way forward, as weaving multiple knowledge- systems, socio-cultural perspectives and initiatives allows sustainability to be addressed in a more holistic way (Lyver et al. 2018; Marques et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2021). 

Indigenous practices of ecosystem management across the globe include a range of tools such as resource management and landscape patchiness incorporated with social dimensions of intergenerational knowledge transmission and the development of specific world views and cultural practices (Berkes et al. 2000). The global review by Berkes et al. (2000) draws parallels between adaptive management and Indigenous approaches because they include feedback learning and evolving understanding of dynamic systems. Recognition of the value of Indigenous Knowledge (IK), which emerges from a worldview that sees the people and the knowledge as being of the land, is growing in the international literatures of ecology and conservation with key papers like Berkes et al. (2000) receiving over 5000 citations. Alternative perspectives and highly detailed local knowledge combined with social mechanisms and customary practices in tune with environmental and ecological processes are key aspects of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK; Berkes et al. 2000; Wehi et al. 2019). Although TEK is a subset of IK and is now widely acknowledged as an empirically sound and rich resource for community-based resource management (Lauer 2017), it has also been critiqued, because as conventionally practiced it can colonise IK by removing it from its cultural context and applying it within non-Indigenous management plans (McGregor 2004). So, despite having strong alignment with the definition of TEK in Berkes et al. (2000) we find the term Indigenous Knowledge better captures the evolving nature of modern Indigenous knowledges and remains consistent with ever-growing insights and expertise. In response to the bi-cultural approach being undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand we use IK in general, otherwise mātauranga – the knowledge, culture, values, world view, process and practice of Māori, the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand. Therein bi-cultural approaches to conservation that include frameworks for effective collaboration and prevent cultural appropriation can empower local communities to build strong societal relationships with the natural world while addressing declines in biological and cultural well-being (Lyver & Tylianakis 2017; Lyver et al. 2018, 2019; McAllister et al. 2019; Wehi et al. 2019). While excellent examples of collaborative research are becoming more common (Clapcott et al. 2018; McAllister et al. 2019), globally and nationally many ecologists and conservation biologists continue to operate entirely independently of IK and fail to recognise the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation (Garnett et al. 2018). For instance, Norton et al.’s (2018) paper on restoration of native biodiversity in Aotearoa only mentioned Māori as a relevant community group, failing to acknowledge the role Māori should play in restoration (Ruru 2004). 

In this review and synthesis, we explore kaitiakitanga, a key Māori concept informed by IK and often linked with conservation, and aim to give Western-trained scientists (acknowledging that Western science also marginalises Eastern cultures; Memmi 2019) and practitioners a better understanding of what kaitiakitanga is beyond (mis) interpretations of “guardianship” or “stewardship”. We also explore some synergies and dichotomies between kaitiakitanga and conservation and highlight some recent examples of co-developed research and monitoring projects. While we specifically discuss Māori worldviews and their relevance to Aotearoa New Zealand in this paper, we believe scientists across the world would benefit from being aware of these concepts because of the similarities and connectedness of many IKs. In addition, indigenising conservation policy is essential globally because colonial conservation ideologies perpetuate injustices to Indigenous human rights to the detriment of human and environmental well-being (Domínguez & Luoma 2020). 

In our broad definition of conservation, we include threatened species recovery, protection of endangered ecosystems, and sustainable resource management. While these three areas are traditionally seen as siloed areas of work, each is clearly tightly interwoven and using a holistic and inclusive understanding of these concepts (consistent with te ao Māori), is essential for effective progress in all three fields. 

Acknowledging and elevating mātauranga is important in Aotearoa New Zealand in order to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Wai 262 claim (Geismar 2013; Houghton 2021; Potter & Māngai 2022). Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document: an agreement in both Māori and English languages, made between rangatira, Māori chiefs, and the British Crown. The chiefs signed the Māori language version and significant differences in the intent and meaning of key terms between the Māori and English versions created challenges from the outset, followed by deliberate breaches by successive governments through following decades (Charters & Whare 2017; Mutu 2018; Mutu 2019). Furthermore, the rule of contra proferentem which translates as “interpretation against the draughtsman” and was in use in 1840 (and continues in the present-day) is a contractual interpretation that views that, where a term, promise, or agreement is ambiguous, the meaning that is prioritised is the one that works against the interests of the party (the British Crown) who provided the ambiguous wording to begin with. Therefore, the correct version is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the reo Māori version (Kwan-Parsons 2021). The Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1975, is a standing commission of inquiry that makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to legislation, policies, actions, or omissions of the Crown that breach the conditions made in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Settlement of Treaty breaches with a particular iwi (tribe) includes a Crown apology and the transfer of cash and assets to a Post-Settlement Governance Entity. Ataria et al. (2018) explain how the Treaty of Waitangi—English language version—specifically covers lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties and the Wai 262 claim covers Indigenous culture, flora, and fauna consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori language version. The Treaty settlement era has seen a resurgence and reconnection between the environment and people, which has resulted in cultural concepts, including kaitiakitanga, being incorporated in policy (Resource Management Act 1991) and research (Kawharu 2000; Henwood & Henwood 2011). Furthermore, kaitiakitanga is increasingly being incorporated as a key part of some national funding schemes (National Science Challenges; Sustainable Seas, Our Land and Water) and also in wider scientific discourse (Hikuroa et al. 2011; Dick et al. 2012; McGinnis & Collins 2013). The proliferation of iwi environmental management plans (e.g. Hauraki Māori Trust Board 2012; Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd 2013; Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust 2019) has also highlighted the importance of kaitiakitanga. 

The development, adoption, and implementation of policy frameworks like Vision Mātauranga (MoRST 2005) have incentivised and resulted in increased scientist-initiated engagement with Māori, and in some cases, Māori initiated engagement with scientists. Well-intentioned scientists and practitioners are seeking to incorporate mātauranga, but in our collective experience, a general lack of understanding of kaitiakitanga is thwarting their efforts and runs the risk of cultural appropriation. Here, we highlight the similarities and differences between kaitiakitanga and conservation, and urge non-Māori scientists and practitioners, even if they are working in genuine partnership mana whenua, to refrain from the “we’re all kaitiaki now” sentiment, as witnessed by all three authors on many occasions. Ataria et al. (2018) clearly articulate the risks of poor-quality engagement with IK and describe ways forward for mātauranga to enrich contemporary scientific thinking and, globally, Latulippe and Klenk (2020) advocate for Indigenous research leadership to combat this issue. 

We have collectively experienced kaitiakitanga becoming a buzzword in Aotearoa New Zealand’s scientific and regulatory community, frequently used by environmental managers and science organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand divorced from its cultural context. Despite the widespread adoption and use of the term kaitiakitanga by these organisations and practitioners, a deep and true understanding of its significance and meaning is usually lacking. This has resulted in the widespread belief that kaitiakitanga equates with conservation guardianship, and we support the argument put forward by others (Kawharu 2000) that this is an oversimplification of a rich and complex concept and set of practices, from a different worldview. Roberts et al. (1995) suggests that in order to fully understand a cultural concept (and to prevent the misuse of superficially acquired knowledge), such as kaitiakitanga, one must first serve an apprenticeship. In this particular case, it means kaitiakitanga must be understood within its cultural context, rather than severed from values and related concepts, which ground it within te ao Māori. Similarly, Wehi et al. (2020) describe the philosophical responsibilities of working with mātauranga. Here, we aim to guide conservation scientists and practitioners in understanding kaitiakitanga so that they can meaningfully engage through an enhanced understanding of the Māori worldview. Despite kaitiakitanga not being equivalent with conservation, its widespread use either interchangeably and/or as a proxy for conservation has prompted this article.

Censorship

The report of the  Review of Australian classification regulation provided to the government by former Communications Dept Secretary Neville Stevens in May 2020 has now been released.

The Review's Terms of Reference were

Classification plays a crucial role in helping Australians make informed decisions about content they or those in their care watch, read and play. 

 

The current National Classification Scheme (the Scheme) exists to provide a framework by which films, video games and certain publications made available in Australia receive a rating and consumer advice that provides a safeguard to the Australian public that content is consumed by the appropriate audience. 

 

It is a joint scheme between the Commonwealth and the states and territories and was established in 1995. The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 establishes the framework for classification of content, and state and territory classification legislation regulates the advertising, availability and sale of classifiable content. 

 

The Scheme applies to online and physical video games, films and episodic series on all platforms including in cinemas, on DVD and online (such as streaming services and subscription video on demand) but not to programs broadcast on television. Classification of television programs is regulated under separate codes of practice covering free to air broadcasters, subscription television broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS. In 2012, the Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) report ‘Classification – Content Regulation and Convergent Media’ found that classification legislation ‘does not deal adequately with the challenges of media convergence and the volume of media available to Australians’. The Convergence Review Committee’s report in 2012 endorsed the findings of the ALRC review. Consistent with these reviews, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) Digital Platforms Inquiry final report recommended that ‘a new platform-neutral regulatory framework be developed,’ including ‘creating a nationally uniform classification scheme to classify or restrict access to content consistently across delivery formats’ (Recommendation 6). 

The ALRC review was conducted before the popularisation of online streaming and video on demand services and the significant increase in online and mobile games available in Australia. This review will build on the ALRC report in the context of today’s diverse media content market. Consistent with the agreement of the Council of Attorneys-General, a review of the National Classification Code, the Guidelines for the Classification of Films (Films Guidelines) and the Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games (Computer Games Guidelines) will also be undertaken to ascertain whether they continue to reflect contemporary community standards. The National Classification Code and the Films Guidelines were last reviewed in 2002, and the Computer Games Guidelines were last reviewed prior to the introduction of the R 18+ category for games in 2013. 

Scope 

 

An independent expert will be appointed to conduct the review, supported by the Department of Communications and the Arts (now the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications).   

 

The review will cover: 1. Opportunities to harmonise the classification of, or restriction of access to, content across different delivery platforms including broadcasting services (commercial free to air, national broadcasting and subscription television), online stores and services, cinema releases, and physical product (e.g. boxed video games and DVDs). 2. The design of a contemporary Australian classification framework, including: a. What content requires classification; b. Consistency of classification categories, standards and access restrictions across media formats; c. Classification decision-making processes, including mechanisms for review; and d. Governance arrangements, including the suitability of the current cooperative scheme. 3. Opportunities to update classification decision-making standards, including a comprehensive review to update the National Classification Code, the Films Guidelines, and the Computer Games Guidelines. 

 

The following issues are out of scope: • Broader content regulation issues outlined in Recommendation 6 of the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. Content regulation reform is a significant undertaking that needs to be broken down into interrelated processes. • Regulation of sexually explicit content online, which will be considered in possible reforms to the Online Content Scheme in Schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

The Report states

Australia’s classification system has existed since the early 1900s and has evolved over the decades. Departmental research consistently shows classification is wanted and valued by Australians. From an early focus on censorship, the system has shifted to providing information and guidance to help parents make decisions about the suitability of content for children of varying ages and to provide all consumers with information to make informed choices. 

There have been a number of reviews of classification arrangements including the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report in 2012 and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry report in 2019. These reports highlighted deficiencies with current classification arrangements and recommended significant changes to take into account the increase in content available online and the convergence of media platforms. 

Areas of concern raised by these reviews and reinforced by submissions to this review include: • The high cost of the processes of the Classification Board (the Board), especially given the volume of content now requiring classification; • Timeframes to use the Board which are too long to be compatible with current media practices; • Separate regulatory systems and regulators for broadcast and for other content providers; • Lack of clarity on what content should require classification due to the very wide and outdated definitions in current legislation; • Lack of compliance with existing legislation among some content providers, including a number of video on demand providers and online games storefronts, partly as a result of the high cost and long timeframes of existing classification practices; • Governance arrangements between the Australian Government and the states and territories, which could better define roles and responsibilities of the various parties in an online environment, and which are not seen as sufficiently timely or flexible; and • Lack of a regular approach to updating classification guidelines to reflect contemporary community concerns and research into relevant matters, including child development issues. 

 

My analysis of these issues and my recommendations for change are informed by the need for a future classification regulatory framework that: 1. Is able to adapt to new technologies, market developments and emerging issues of community concern; 2. Provides clear, useful and easily accessible information to enable consumers to make informed media choices for both themselves and for their children; 3. Has evidence-based classification guidelines that are regularly updated, taking into regard both expert knowledge and Australian community standards; 4. Enables classification arrangements that are efficient and cost-effective for industry, that are consistent across content platforms and which have the confidence of the community; 5. Provides appropriate content restriction and enforcement for both physical and online content; and 6. Enables timely decision-making on changes to the classification scheme. 

 

National Classification Code and standards 

 

Clause 1 of the National Classification Code and section 11 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 contain a range of underpinning principles and matters to be taken into account in classification. Although formulated in 1995, many aspects of these overarching principles retain value, in particular the balancing of protecting children from harmful content while preserving the right of adults to “read, hear, see and play what they want.” However, other concepts and language contained in these provisions, which have roots in the history of classification, are in need of an update. Such amendments would reflect the evolution of classification from its historical origins in censorship and concerns for public morals to a more objective, harms-based system focussed on informing consumers (particularly parents) and protecting children. 

 

I recommend that key principles set out in the National Classification Code be updated to provide that: • Adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want, with limited exception; • Minors should be protected from content likely to harm or disturb them; and • Everyone should be protected from exposure to content of serious concern to the wellbeing of the community. 

 

Content to be classified  

 

There is a need to clarify what content should be classified, as current definitions in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 were designed for the content market of the 1990s and technically capture all streaming services and user-generated content uploaded to sites such as YouTube. 

 

The focus of classification should be on content that is most relevant and important to Australian consumers. I therefore recommend that the following three principles should be used to define content that should be classified: • Professionally produced – content with higher quality production values; and • Distributed on a commercial basis – to capture organisations or individuals that distribute media content as part of their business, as opposed to individuals or community groups whose main purpose is not to distribute media content for commercial gain; and • Directed at an Australian audience – a selection of content is specifically made available for Australia or marketing is specifically directed at Australians. 

 

Narrowing the definition of ‘classifiable content’ will capture online video on demand providers and online games stores directed at Australian consumers but exclude user-generated content. Classification should continue to be the responsibility of the organisation that makes the content available first in Australia, regardless of who originally made the content. 

 

The eSafety Commissioner would continue to have responsibility for responding to online content that is illegal, including content that would be Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme. 

 

As part of the classification of films, sexually explicit (X 18+) films in physical formats should continue to be classified. Sexually explicit content online is regulated by the Online Content Scheme which is currently being reviewed. 

 

Current classification exemptions for films, computer games and publications should be maintained.   

 

Processes to classify content 

 

A range of different classification processes currently exist under the National Classification Scheme and broadcasting laws. Where some content providers are submitting content to the Board, some are using classification tools and others are self-classifying content. These varying processes mean that classification can be more expensive and time-consuming for some parts of industry compared to others and this uneven playing field can have an impact on compliance with classification laws. 

 

Classification decisions need to be consistent, accurate, accessible and easily understood by consumers. The community must have confidence that the right classification outcome is reached, regardless of the process that is used to achieve that classification. 

 

I recommend harmonising processes across platforms so that industry is given greater responsibility for undertaking classification, with the flexibility to choose the classification process that best suits them. These processes would be: • Self-classification by people trained and accredited by the regulator, who could be either in-house staff or third-party classifiers; or • Self-classification using classification tools approved by the Australian Government Minister; or • Submitting content to the regulator for classification. 

 

Many computer games online show Australian classifications using the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) tool. However, Apple’s App Store uses its own international age-rating system where games are classified 4+, 9+, 12+ or 17+. The Apple App Store’s own system is working well – there are few complaints to the Department, and the Department’s research with the community indicates there is general consumer acceptance. I therefore recommend that the relevant Australian Government Minister should have the power to authorise the use of alternative classification systems for computer games where they provide the necessary classification information for the Australian community. 

 

The games storefront Steam, operated by the company Valve, does not display Australian classification information for all games and does not provide Australian consumers and parents with adequate information to help them make informed choices. This needs to change. If Valve does not participate in IARC in the near future, I recommend that the Department further discuss with Valve the implementation of a separate tool to generate Australian ratings for computer games sold to Australian consumers on Steam. 

 

Currently, the same content is required to be classified separately for release across different platforms and in different formats. To avoid this double handling, I recommend that once content is classified once, it should not need to be classified again, unless it is modified and the modification is likely to change the classification. However, content providers should be able to give additional consumer advice where necessary.\ 

 

The only exceptions to this would be to: • Allow content providers to reclassify content after 10 years to reflect changing community standards; and • Provide a limited provision for content providers to apply to the regulator for approval to reclassify where they consider the original classification category (e.g. G, PG, M, etc.) requires reassessment. 

 

Classification decisions should continue to be uploaded and published on the National Classification Database at www.classification.gov.au, and this database should also include content classified by the broadcasters. This will provide transparent information to Australian consumers and help content providers find the classification of content that has previously been classified. 

 

The review of classification decisions should be transferred from the Classification Review Board to the Australian Government regulator. In the infrequent cases where the regulator was the original decision-maker, alternative staff would review the decision to manage any conflict of interest issues. 

 

The community must have confidence that the move to greater industry self-classification will not undermine the integrity of the classification system. To continue high levels of community confidence in classification, industry self-classification must be underpinned by a robust accreditation, audit, review and timely complaints mechanism overseen by the Australian Government regulator. 

 

Classification categories and consumer advice 

 

A variety of suggestions were made about changes to the classification categories, including adding a category between PG and M, or introducing entirely new age-based categories. Although I see merit in providing more guidance on age suitability for parents, I do not recommend changes to classification categories at this time. 

 

The current scheme, while it may not be perfect, is well known to the community and a clear case would need to be made for any changes. There is no consensus amongst stakeholders, or arising from the Department’s consumer research, for any particular alternative system and changes are strongly opposed by some stakeholders on commercial and technical grounds. However, this matter should be kept under review. 

 

I recommend that the Refused Classification category should continue to include both illegal content and content which is abhorrent to the community but that it be renamed Prohibited to make the meaning of this category clearer. 

 

I also recommend that the current categories for submittable publications be replaced with equivalent categories currently in use for films and computer games: Unrestricted would be replaced with M, Category 1 restricted replaced with R 18+ and Category 2 restricted replaced with X 18+. This change would be clearer for consumers and bring greater uniformity to the classification system. 

 

There are various views in relation to consumer advice and how it is currently applied by classification tools, by broadcast classifiers and by the Board. With a move to greater industry self-classification, there needs to be more detailed guidance given to industry so that consistent consumer advice is provided. 

 

To be useful, consumer advice should be specific, direct and consistent. In this vein, I recommend that generic consumer advice, such as ‘strong themes’, be avoided wherever possible and instead, more descriptive consumer advice be provided. 

 

In updating guidelines for consumer advice, greater recognition should be given to current and emerging community concerns such as suicide, incitement of racial hatred and domestic violence. 

 

Legal restrictions 

 

Currently, the categories MA 15+ and R 18+ are legally restricted under the National Classification Scheme. However, MA 15+ content is not legally restricted on free to air television where broadcasters are subject to a requirement that it be broadcast after at least 8.30pm. Moreover, this content is readily available at any time through broadcasters’ video on demand (catch-up TV) services. Reflecting this, the MA 15+ category stands for Mature Audience on free to air television compared with Mature Accompanied for content classified under the National Classification Scheme. 

 

Despite MA 15+ and R 18+ both being legally restricted categories, an important distinction lies in the provisions relating to adult accompaniment or consent that apply to MA 15+. This means that the age restriction for this category is conditional on the physical accompaniment (for example, during the duration of a film screened in a cinema) or consent (for example, when purchasing a product in store) by a responsible adult. In contrast, the restriction of R 18+ is unconditional and only individuals 18 years and older can access this content. 

 

In the online world, where the concept of another person’s accompaniment or consent is difficult to monitor or enforce, the full conditions of MA 15+ arguably lose their validity. The fact that the accompaniment or consent caveat does not have application in a home setting is reflected in the different conditions that apply to the MA 15+ category for broadcast content. 

 

I consider that arrangements should be consistent across all online platforms and I am recommending that MA 15+ content accessed online no longer be legally restricted. Legal restriction of this category is not enforceable via available technology and this change would harmonise arrangements between broadcasters and other content providers. There are an increasing number of parental controls available online that enable parents to restrict access to particular content and I recommend that these be more widely available and better promoted. 

 

I recommend that the MA 15+ category should remain restricted in the physical world as there are readily available means of enforcing this restriction and in its absence, there would be no alternative mechanism for parents to prevent their children accessing this material. The R 18+ and X 18+ categories should remain restricted on all formats and the best available technology should be employed to restrict access. 

 

Classification guidelines 

 

There are different but similar guidelines for the classification of films applying to online content providers and free to air and subscription broadcasters. It would be preferable to have a single set of guidelines for films applying across all delivery platforms. 

 

The Films Guidelines use an impact hierarchy for classification, which is inherently subjective and relies heavily on the capacity of the Board to interpret in a consistent manner. The guidelines used by television broadcasters, by comparison, are more detailed in their description of what is allowable in each category. As classification increasingly becomes the responsibility of industry, there is a need for guidelines to be as detailed and as specific as possible to enable the provision of consistent classification decisions and information. This would provide the public with a transparent set of classification criteria and engender confidence in the system. 

 

I therefore recommend the development of more detailed and consistent guidelines across all delivery platforms. 

 

Currently, there is no mechanism for regular reviewing and updating of guidelines to reflect community standards, empirical research on child development issues or developments in content or modes of delivery. I recommend that a Classification Advisory Panel comprising experts in child development and other relevant fields, as well as representatives of community groups and those with industry experience, be established to provide advice on updates of the classification categories, National Classification Code, classification guidelines and matters to be taken into account in decision- making in the Classification Act. The panel would draw on both the empirical evidence in relation to harmful impacts of media content, especially on children, and research and consultation with the community. It would report at least every four years on possible updates to classification guidelines and as necessary to respond to issues that may be referred to it or on which it considers attention needs to be given. 

 

There are separate guidelines used to classify films, computer games and publications. A number of submissions called for the merging of the Films Guidelines and Computer Games Guidelines. Many adult gamers were concerned that the differences in these guidelines were unnecessary and resulted in a number of games being Refused Classification when they are both readily available internationally and would not be Refused Classification under the Films Guidelines. 

 

While there was considerable support for eliminating inconsistencies between the Computer Games Guidelines and Films Guidelines, other submitters were concerned that simply combining these Guidelines would not adequately capture certain interactive game features or provide adequate safeguards for children. 

 

I consider that there is a need to address concerns about the impact of interactive content on children and about violence in computer games, and for this reason do not recommend the merging of the Films Guidelines and Computer Games Guidelines. 

 

However, there are provisions in the Computer Games Guidelines that are more restrictive than the Films Guidelines and have led to a number of games being Refused Classification in Australia. Consistent with the principle in the National Classification Code that “adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want,” I recommend that the Films Guidelines and Computer Games Guidelines should be aligned at the R 18+ level and that corresponding changes are made to the Refused Classification provisions in the Computer Games Guidelines. Existing protections would continue to be applied, particularly relating to interactivity, for content below that level that may be accessed by children. 

 

Films Guidelines 

 

Some specific issues were raised in respect of the Films Guidelines. Concerns about sexualised depictions of minors in films is one such issue. While context, artistic merit and intended audience should be taken into consideration when assessing a film generally, sexualised depictions of minors (whether real or animated) that are gratuitous, exploitative or offensive, and which sexually objectify children, should never be permitted. 

 

I recommend that the Films Guidelines should be amended to make reference to the need to give greater weight to the possibility that sexualised depictions of children are gratuitous, exploitative or offensive. While the current classification system provides for child abuse material to be Refused Classification, the provisions in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) in relation to child abuse material are much more detailed than those in the National Classification Code and Guidelines, and I recommend that the National Classification Code and Guidelines should be aligned with the Criminal Code in this regard. 

 

There is also a need for clear warnings for consumers and specific guidance for classifiers about matters such as violence against women and sexual violence, suicide, dangerous imitable behaviour and scary content. 

 

I recommend that the Classification Advisory Panel should address these issues in providing advice on the development of revised and more detailed guidelines. It should also review evidence of impacts on children of lower levels of violence. While current treatment of language in classification is considered generally acceptable, there would be value in including racist and other discriminatory language in this element. I also recommend that the use of alcohol, prescription medications and smoking should be considered under the element ‘drugs’. 

 

For X 18+ films, I recommend that the absolute prohibitions on fetishes, which are not illegal, and violence (where it is unrelated to sex) should be removed. 

 

Computer Games Guidelines 

 

Issues relating specifically to the Computer Games Guidelines that have emerged during this review include simulated gambling, loot boxes and other micro-transactions. The main issue with loot boxes is the combination of expenditure with chance and concerns about gambling-like impacts on players, including children. To address this, I recommend that loot boxes that can be purchased are given consumer advice addressing both expenditure and chance aspects, and are given a minimum classification of PG. 

 

Simulated gambling games, which replicate casino games, require a stronger response to prevent children’s access to such games. I recommend that games which are purely based on simulated gambling should be given a minimum classification of MA 15+ and continue to be given consumer advice of ‘simulated gambling’. However, games which incorporate simulated gambling in a less prominent way (e.g. as part of a broader, narrative-based game), and where simulated gambling can be avoided, may not need such a high rating. Appropriate consumer advice would include ‘simulated gambling’ where it is interactive and clearly replicates casino games. 

 

Publications Guidelines 

 

There were few suggested changes to the Publications Guidelines. While I recommend maintaining separate Guidelines for Films, Computer Games and Publications, the Publications Guidelines should incorporate definitions of classifiable elements which are consistent with those used in the Films Guidelines and Computer Games Guidelines. Clarity is also needed in relation to allowable detail in depictions of nudity. 

 

Concerns were raised by two stakeholders about sexualised depictions of children in publications. As with the Films Guidelines, the Publications Guidelines should include the need to give greater weight to the possibility that sexualised depictions of children are gratuitous, exploitative or offensive. 

 

Advertising of films, games and publications 

 

I recommend no changes to classification regulation for the advertising of films, computer games and submittable publications, although responsibilities for advertising assessments that currently lie with the Board should be the role of the Australian Government regulator. 

 

Advertising for films and computer games on television should continue to be regulated through broadcasting codes of practice and the Australian Association of National Advertisers codes. Complaints about the placement of advertising should continue to be referred to the broadcaster in the first instance, with escalated complaints being dealt with by the regulator. Complaints about the substance of advertising should continue to be referred to Ad Standards. 

 

I looked closely at the film industry’s proposal to change Commonwealth laws for advertising unclassified films where the content of the trailer is assessed rather than the likely classification of the film being advertised. However, I recognise that parts of the Australian community may have concerns about potentially unsuitable films being marketed to children, in cinemas in particular, and on balance recommend no change. 

 

Classification governance 

 

Role of the Australian Government and the states and territories 

 

Under the National Classification Scheme, the Australian Government is responsible for classifying content and the states and territories are responsible for regulating the sale, exhibition, advertising and hire of classifiable content. Under the intergovernmental agreement signed in 1995, decisions made by Ministers must be effected through the Council of Attorneys-General (CAG). Any changes to the National Classification Code and the classification Guidelines must be unanimously agreed by Ministers from all jurisdictions. Many submitters were concerned that these long-standing arrangements were no longer working well in the digital age. 

 

To clarify classification responsibilities and to make classification decision-making more responsive to changes in the content market, I recommend that the 1995 intergovernmental agreement be revised so that: • The Australian Government retains responsibility for establishing the mechanisms to classify content, however a range of different classification processes can be used. • The Australian Government is responsible for enforcement of online classifiable content, with states and territories responsible for enforcement of offline (physical) classifiable content. • CAG decision-making should generally be made on the basis of consensus but where consensus cannot be reached, decisions should be made on the basis of a majority of the members. 

 

The Australian Government regulator 

 

Currently, classification regulation is split amongst a number of Federal bodies, including the Board, the Classification Review Board, Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and the Department. Consistent with the recommendations to harmonise content regulation across all delivery platforms, I consider that most of these functions should be consolidated in one body. Given its existing role in regulation of broadcasters and online content more generally, I recommend that this body be ACMA.