The purpose of this article is to examine Australia's regulatory system for the classification of publications, films and computer games, the National Classification System (‘NCS’), and to question whether its classification decision process is susceptible to political influence. Formed in 1995 as a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, States and Territories, the NCS was created to overcome problems associated with former classification schemes that operated on a non-national basis in each Australian jurisdiction. It is argued that, although the current system is superior to the ones of the past, it still allows, or at least perceivably allows, political influence in censorship decision-making, as was historically the case. This is because documents used by the Classification Board and Classification Review Board (‘the Boards’) to make classification decisions are ambiguous and often inconsistent, and, even with redrafting, would remain so without the benefit of judicial precedent. The ambiguity created by the classification documents legitimates the possible exercise of political influence through a variety of means.

The purpose of this article is to examine Australia's regulatory system for the classification of publications, films and computer games, the National Classification System ('NCS'), and to question whether its classification decision process is susceptible to political influence. Formed in 1995 as a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, States and Territories, the NCS was created to overcome problems associated with former classification schemes that operated on a non-national basis in each Australian jurisdiction. It is argued that, although the current system is superior to the ones of the past, it still allows, or at least perceivably allows, political influence in censorship decision-making, as was historically the case. This is because documents used by the Classification Board and Classification Review Board ('the Boards') to make classification decisions are ambiguous and often inconsistent, and, even with redrafting, would remain so without the benefit of judicial precedent. The ambiguity created by the classification documents legitimates the possible exercise of political influence through a variety of means. I Federal Law Review Volume 37 ____________________________________________________________________________________ classification framework, the NCS. The NCS is responsible for classifying, and regulating the dissemination of, publications, films and computer games. The purpose of this article is to redress somewhat this relative paucity of analysis, with a particular emphasis on the integrity of the process of classification decision-making undertaken under the system's scope. There are three reasons for this focus. First, classification decisions by the Boards are often highly controversial and thus attract much publicity. 2 Secondly, the current system is now arguably the normative centrepiece of Australia's censorship system given the use of NCS concepts and expertise by classification institutions in other areas. 3 Thirdly, the classification and censorship of films, publications and computer games now largely take place free from the previous check of judicial scrutiny: although the common law offence of obscene libel 4 is now codified in all Australian jurisdictions with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, 5 it is today of marginal relevance as obscenity cases concerning material (as opposed to behaviour) are now rarely brought before the courts. 6 This article argues that, although the current system is superior to earlier models, the NCS still allows, or at least perceivably allows, political influence in censorship decision-making. 7 Part II will give a detailed account of the current operation of the NCS; Part III will highlight aspects of the NCS that allow for the operation of political influence; and Part IV will offer some suggestions for reform.