Mr NEVILLE (5:02 PM) —Let me say that I am no prude. What adults want to watch in the privacy of their homes is largely up to them. Some material which is broadcast on the Big Brother program at times when children could be watching leaves a lot to be desired. There is nothing wrong with nudity in context. There is nothing wrong with adult themes in context as part of cinema or television programs. But this form of light entertainment has no artistic merit whatsoever and no justification for the gratuitous sex that it offers. We have a reasonably good censorship regime in this country. We have general exhibition, parental guidance, two levels of M certification—one requiring the accompaniment of adults—and the R classification category. Everyone knows what they are watching. We understand that X classification films are not generally available for exhibition in cinemas. They are made and distributed in the ACT and the Northern Territory.

The government did not approve the move towards non-violent erotica, which would have mollified Australians into believing that they were watching something a bit naughty but not too harmful. If this is the standard we set for the exhibition of films in cinemas, where people choose to pay their money, or for their sale as videos then are we not entitled to expect that free-to-air television maintains the same if not a higher standard? Why? Because by their very definition free-to-air films are available to all Australians and hold a privileged place in Australian households. We are therefore entitled to believe that classification is more important in this context.

People do not deserve to be affronted by material that would otherwise be excluded under normal censorship provisions. For that reason, I understand the anger of people who have been affronted by Big Brother and Big Brother Uncut. Surely we have not stooped to such a level in Australia in free-to-air television that community debate centres around whether Michelle and Glenn had real sex or not. Quite apart from the mind-numbing banality of most of this reality television, do we really need to further degrade the standards of Australian television production and presentation to such a pathetic level? The program, to which so many people have objected, cannot be justified on the grounds of artistic merit. Let us hope it is not a genuine reflection of Australian society, the other classic justification. Let us be frank: some episodes are nothing more than gratuitous sex and innuendo, and I seriously question whether our censorship authorities, particularly Channel 10 internally and the ABA, are doing their job. (Time expired)