The danger of reclassifying Refused Classification
It was hard to keep sight of Conroy’s temporary internet filter backflip yesterday amidst all the other backflips Labor has been pulling lately.
From Asylum seeker policy (which is several backflips in itself), to resource taxes to now the internet filter, it’s getting hard to keep track of what exactly Labor’s policies are.
As far as the internet filter goes though, Conroy announced yesterday that the entire thing was going to be shelved until a review of the Refused Classification process was done.
On the surface one might take this as a review of the Refused Classification system itself but really what we’re talking about here is much more simple.
The Refused Classification system is here to stay, despite a classification process review it’s not going anywhere. What will be examined however is the scope of what exactly Refused Classification covers and more importantly ‘whether it adequately reflects community standards.’
This is where the review has the potential for disaster.
Currently classification guidelines are largely grey. Material goes into the classification warehouse and the factors that contribute to it being classified can be whether or not the reviewer’s coffee was warm enough that morning, how was the traffic on the drive in to work, what they had for dinner the night before and of course any personal bias the particular reviewer might harbor.
In short the Refused Classification process is a massively inconsistent grey area, let alone the classification itself.
On the surface then a review of the classification scope and guidelines for Refused Classification sounds like a good idea, but what if it goes the wrong way?
Community standards is never going to be definitive. Unless you live in some backwater town in the sticks, by nature and diversity itself, community standards are going to wildly vary.
Even having said that, Victoria’s suburban families probably have differing standards to say New South Wales’ suburban families. This in itself is another layer of problems when trying to measure something by community standards.
Whilst it’d be great to see a definitive measure for Refused Classification, is it really worth the risk of the process going wildly in the conservative direction?
Labor’s public consultations and transparency on any and all matter concerning the proposed internet filter has been abysmal to date. With reports being withheld for months, studies delayed and then declared to ‘n0t be in the public’s interest to view them’ and massive amounts of mistruth and technological incompetence showcased to the Australian public, do we really want to trust these guys to review any classification process? Let alone one that’s going to have a direct impact on what is and isn’t viewable on the internet.
Refused Classification works now mostly because it’s broken. The authorities can classify whatever they want but it’s mostly still not illegal to purchase material from overseas for personal use. So long as you don’t re-sell it or import it for commercial use, you’re fine. At least that’s how I take the grey interpretation of what Australian’s can and can’t do with RC material.
By tightening and properly defining the guidelines and scope of Refused Classification, Labor could be opening the door to tougher regulation and classification than ever.
With the internet filter now clearly shelved until after the next federal election, it’ll be interesting to see just how this review process takes place. If the past is anything to go by it’ll be done behind closed doors and never released to the public.
Next year sometime, most likely after a major worldwide event Conroy will then announce that after consultation with ‘millions’ of Australian’s the Refused Classification guidelines and scope are now tighter then ever.
Of course the millions of consulted Australian’s will never be found and any and all accountability into the accuracy or transparency of the review will be denied.
Worst case scenario I know but it’s worrying that given Conroy’s past performance it’s entirely plausible.
Leave a Reply...