From PPAU Wiki

This document is currently under development and is not approved or endorsed by the party.
Some statements may be incorrect, unverified or otherwise objectionable to party policy or intention, and until such time as it is endorsed by the party, it does not represent the views or intentions of the party. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes to this document.

Draft Notes

This is a draft, that was worked through and edited by members and others present at the Sydney Meeting on 5 December, 2009.

It is only a draft, and should not be considered an official statement by the Pirate Party Australia, it in no way should be considered a statement of platform - it is placed here for all members to consider, add to and edit.

Declaration of Platform and Principles 2.0

What are we about?

The Pirate Party Australia is founded on the basic tenets of the freedom of culture, speech, our inalienable right to liberty and privacy, the protection of the freedoms provided by the newly-evolving, global, information society and the restoration of the freedoms and balance lost through the encroachment of harmful, overbearing, intellectual monopolies. As part of a global movement, we seek not only to change national laws, but to reform perceptions and laws and affect worldwide change. We seek to do this democratically, through the parliament.

Free Culture & Copyright Reform

Copyright is about balance. It is a limited, statutory monopoly granted through the Copyright Act 1968 to a creator of an original work, in order to encourage innovation, publication and dissemination of culture, information and knowledge. It is limited by time and scope. The monopoly granted prevents others from using or distributing the work without licence, with a few limited exceptions, for a limited time. There is an understanding that this grant of monopoly should be balanced with the right of society to enjoy, learn from and build upon that work. Or at least, this is how it should be.

In recent times we have seen a rapid and drastic expansion of copyright in favour of established industry, and the current situation now stifles creativity and innovation. The artificial monopoly created by copyright has been widely expanded, and the balance has been lost. Instead of protecting artists, it now works to give respiration to stale and inefficient business models. Copyright has become a mechanism for control that locks down and stifles culture, information and knowledge.

Large corporate entities confuse the issue by misusing terms like 'intellectual property', which cloud public debate and allow for the use of pejorative terms like 'piracy' and 'theft'. It is a misinterpretation that confuses the general public, and more importantly, law makers.

We believe that the copyright monopoly should only exist where a work is being exploited commercially. However, when we share privately and non-commercially, copyright should not work to stop or interfere with this, and it certainly should not make people criminals.

Non-commercial culture and information distribution must be legal. Derivative works that are non-commercial in nature, or are parodies must be permitted and encouraged, without restriction.

Copyright should not be placed above the fundamental right to privacy, security, the presumption of innocence and due process and the freedom of expression.

We need to make copyright fair, we need to bring back balance, and we need to protect our civil liberties.

Sharing Knowledge and Culture Must Be Legal

Advances in technology have delivered society an unparalleled opportunity for knowledge and cultural dissemination, allowing a completely unfettered ability to share and exchange ideas, knowledge, art and culture whilst presenting a myriad of business opportunities for the innovative firm or individual. It also delivers artists greater exposure, who previously may have never realised their potential due to the antiquated models of distribution.

However this new found freedom is being curtailed as copyright maximalists and big media seek to re-assert their domination and control, without any regard for our fundamental civil liberties. Governments and established media have declared a 'war on sharing' and this misguided attempt to prevent unauthorised distribution necessarily requires the erosion of civil liberties, including intrusions into our privacy and the curtailment of the freedom of expression. The established industry lobby groups intentionally misrepresent the issue. Politicians typically comply because they do not understand the implications of new technology, or care about the purpose or necessity for balance in copyright.

Access to culture, knowledge, information and the freedoms to participate and share, should not be a privilege granted by the size of your wallet. Access to these things should not be dictated by corporations. It is a precondition for the freedom of expression and a pre-requisite for a free and democratic society.

This does not mean we do not recognise the economic importance of cultural works, nor does this understanding preclude their use commercially. We do, however, make the statement that there is also an intrinsic economic value of the public domain. Fair dealing is an important and valuable part of the creative economy. The ability to draw on the cultural commons contributes significantly more to the economy than, and provides the basis for, the copyright economy. The ability to freely use creative works, knowledge and information is a necessary part of our culture, and a necessary part of our economy. The push to enclose and control the commons is harmful to society.

As the pace of culture and information transfer quickens, and the means by which this is achieved shifts, a new paradigm is being created through a 'disruptive technology,' and the relic that is copyright in its current form is quickly becoming irrelevant. A law, that may be suitable for the analogue paradigm, overextends itself and is increasingly irrelevant in its current form when applied to the digital sphere. We are seeing a completely new and different understanding of copyright; a generational shift in the way we relate to and participate in culture. It serves no logical purpose to persist in aiding the respiration of an inadequate or inefficient model, or to cripple technology by succumbing to the vested interests of established industry.

New, sustainable models will be found if only they are allowed to be. There are simply better, and more efficient ways of ensuring that knowledge creation is rewarded, that artists are credited and paid, than the arbitrary expansion of knowledge monopolies.

15 Year Term of Commercial Protection

An excessive length and scope of copyright is responsible for an increasingly inefficient outcome both economically and culturally, because it encourages rent-seeking behaviour and inhibits innovation.

In most cases, the duration of copyright in Australia is life + 70 years. This is ludicrous. The purpose of copyright has always been to encourage innovation for the good of society. It has never been to directly reward the great-great-grandchildren of innovators. Such overprotection leads to a reduction of innovation due to the removal of motivation to create. We need a reasonable and fair balance, to encourage sharing and to spark innovation to achieve better economic and social outcomes. We advocate a reduction in the term of copyright to 15 years. It returns copyright to a more reasonable length of time, and has been said to represent an optimal balance – a harmony between society's welfare, society's sacrifice of natural rights and the material welfare of the creator.

Abolish Crown Copyright and Open Access to Public Sector Information

Copyright carries with it the potential to restrict the flow and dissemination of information, so when it is applied to things like laws, regulations and other public sector information it acts as a severe inhibitor to the access of information. Works, data, laws, regulations and other materials produced by any government body in Australia should not be restricted in its reproduction or dissemination, and should not be enclosed by copyright. We need to abolish the concept of 'crown copyright.'

There are inefficiencies in the current system that see public schools paying collecting societies for the photocopying of government documents, the prevention of useful tools being developed because of the cumbersome requirement for explicit government consent for the use of public sector information. There is also the risk of the crown copyright being used to censor or actively restrict publication of government information.

It is our information; we have all paid for it. The public interest is best served by having free and unfettered access to all public sector information. Doing so will increase innovation and creativity across all society. Whilst there may be some regulations and guidelines necessary in regards to the use of public sector information, for the purposes of data integrity for example, crown copyright must not work to prohibit or encumber access to information.

As an interim, we believe that the recommendations of the Copyright Law Review Committee are followed, and express exceptions to copyright are established, and crown copyright abolished for all:

Bills, statutes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws and proclamations, and explanatory memoranda or explanatory statements relating to those materials;
Judgements, orders and awards of any court or tribunal;
Official records of parliamentary debates and reports of parliament, including reports of parliamentary committees;
Reports of commissions of inquiry, including royal commissions and ministerial and statutory inquiries;
Other categories of material prescribed by regulation.

Even where translated, adapted or otherwise used, no material the government produces should be subject to the enclosure of copyright.

Equitable Access to Culture, Information and Knowledge

It is a right of everyone to be able to participate in our culture, to access knowledge and information. Where copyright laws, like they do in Australia, provide exceptions for the creation of accessible formats for people with reading disabilities, international legal frameworks should place no restriction on cross border import and export of such works.

Open Access to Knowledge and Research

The public sector funds much scientific and academic research, that produces a wealth of copyrighted works. We believe that as these works have been financed by the public, they should also be able to be shared and freely accessed by the public. Often these publicly funded, peer-reviewed academic works are published in commercial journals or publications, and are then not made accessible, not even in our public libraries, without excessive costs, that work to impede learning and inquiry. We support the Open Access movement, and believe that the accessibility of the cultural and scientific heritage of mankind is essential to economic and cultural development.

The Australian government should impose requirements on institutions it finances, as well as support the creation of repositories, for the support of the principles of Open Access.

No Digital Restrictions Management

We advocate the repeal of the 'Technological Protection Measures' (TPM) within the Copyright Act 1968, that gives so called 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM) legal foundation. DRM can be a prelude to surreptitious surveillance and unauthorised data collection, it cripples culture and knowledge distribution, and is an electronic equivalent of a barbed wire fence around data you rightfully should have free access to. It prevents us exercising the fair dealing rights we already have. Information crippled by DRM is also subject to being rendered worthless by some trigger, such as purchasing a new device, or the publisher closing down the service.

In the interim, we demand that legislation is enacted to protect consumers. They must be notified that the product they are purchasing is using DRM. It must be made clear as to what restrictions and limitations are imposed by the DRM by way of operation or by way of ability to copy, manipulate. It must include what additional software is installed, what behaviour is observed and what data is collected.

We also need a grace period of 14 days legislated, that would allow consumers, even after notification, to be able to return a product crippled with DRM.

No Three Strikes or Graduated Response

In their 2008 report, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industy (IFPI) openly declared to the world that "ISP Responsibility" would become reality. Shortly afterward we saw the introduction of HADOPI in France. A "Three Strikes" or "Graduated Response" law, where upon three allegations of copyright infringement, the account holder would have their access to the internet terminated. These laws were deemed unconstitutional because like most democracies, there is a presumption of innocence and we are all entitled to due process. The court also recognised that the internet is a component of the freedom of expression. It has quickly become a proposed law elsewhere, in the United Kingdom and New Zealand for instance.

As the internet weaves itself further into the fibre of the Australian way of life, we have become socially, economically and culturally dependent on it, it is an essential part of modern life. We conduct our financial affairs and businesses through it. We interact with our friends and family on it. Through online communities we find new friends. We share ideas, knowledge and culture, and in turn create new ideas, knowledge and culture. It is the most important platform for political discourse today. It is not only a component of the freedom of expression, it is becoming one of the most important components of the modern age. It is a utility at a comparable level of importance to electricity and water.

This is why it is worrying that the Australian government has indicated an intention to possibly consider the implementation of a 'three-strikes' or 'graduated response' in response to the 'threat of piracy'. It is not acceptable that upon an allegation, and without due process, any person should be arbitrarily disconnected from such a vital medium, and have their freedom of expression curtailed. It is also unacceptable that we should allow ISPs to become de facto copyright enforcers, requiring the invasion of our privacy by having all our private communications monitored.

Patent Reform

One cannot exclusively own an idea. It is not natural property, and there is no inherent notion or right of ownership in an invention. An idea is part of the greater collective knowledge of society. A patent is a government-sanctioned, time-limited monopoly granted to a claimant of that idea, in the belief and expectation that this monopoly will be exploited commercially. The logic is that if we temporarily cede our claim and right to freely implement and use ideas, by making the option of a grant of monopoly, we encourage the disclosure of innovation and the secret of an invention. This is the purpose of a patent. It is a market distortion that is made in the hope that society will benefit, however we are seeing that in many instances this is not happening.

As the world changes, and we shift from the industrial age to the information age, patents are not fulfilling the intended purpose for which they were created, and are actually hindering innovation. They are simply not as important to the innovative process as some would have people believe, and in some cases can be destructive and used to suppress innovation and development. In particular, we believe patents on pharmaceuticals, software, living organisms and genetic material are particularly harmful, and raise ethical considerations. There are unreasonable and irresponsible consequences that necessarily require legislative and structural change.

Another issue with patents is that as technology has improved at an exponential rate, the length of patents has remained effectively unchanged. Historically, an invention would likely take several years to spread around the globe, and the market for any given creation was relatively small. Today, an invention, once developed, can now go to market within the space of weeks and reach billions of people. 20 years is overly excessive in the modern world.

Increasingly, patents are being used improperly through a process of 'speculation' or 'hoarding' – and is symptomatic of a system that is in dire need of overhaul. The patenting of trivialities must be halted, ensuring that the system is not hindering innovation, as it presently is.

Software Patents

The statement that "one cannot own an idea" has a logical extension to all formalisation and expressions of those ideas. This includes: abstract processes, business methodologies, chemical formulae and mathematical procedures and algorithms. Software, in its basest form, is simply a series of mathematical operations describing an idea and hence should not be offered any monopoly protection by patents.

We believe that software can be adequately protected by limited term copyright, as provided by the relevant section of our policy, already provides more than sufficient protection for an inventor or developer.

The Pirate Party believes that Free and Open Source Software is the ideal way of promoting innovation and progress in the software industry and the internet community in general. We hold many values in common with the Free Software Movement and advocate the use of open source software, and open standards in all government and public service applications and standards, at all levels.

We do, however, respect people's right to choose whether they distribute their software as source code, or in a compiled format. There are many choices of business model that different companies will choose for their own reasons.

Pharmaceutical Patents

Drug or pharmaceutical patents are harmful.

Millions of people too poor to receive the drugs they need, suffer and die because they don't have access to them. Even though the drugs they need to save their lives exist, and could be easily available, strict enforcement of the monopolistic control of the supply of medicines necessary for their health and safety means they will not see them.

By using the monopoly power the patent provides, pharmaceutical companies place the value of their already excessive profits above those of human life. Pharmaceutical patents have lead to a moral corruption, the sees the pricing of retrovirals and other medicines out of the grasp of the people that desperately need them, whilst doing all within their power to maintain draconian control over measures that would see lowered costs, and greater access.

Abuse of pharmaceutical patents is widespread, and we have seen anti-trust action in the EU, taken against the pharmaceutical industry as they try to evergreen their patents and block generic competition, preventing the return of research and knowledge to the public domain. Many pharmaceutical companies use "process patents" to effectively block the generic manufacture of a drug, by requiring that a certain patented process to produce a drug that is delivered in a certain way within the body. By establishing newer processes, the drug effectively stays patented for much more than the intended 20 years.

This also contributes to the ever-increasing cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, (PBS) and similar schemes the world over, because we simply have no way to control spiralling costs that pharmaceutical companies are imposing on us.

But aren't they necessary?

Despite these concerns, there are people who continue to argue for the maintenance of pharmaceutical patents in their current form. We recognise that the research and development cycle for pharmaceuticals is long, complex and involved and thus expensive, so it must be funded adequately.

However, if the purpose of patents is for the mutual benefit of us all - that is, to encourage disclosure and to help developers of knowledge, balanced with the inherent right of the public to use and benefit from that technical knowledge, there are serious questions about whether this is happening through pharmaceutical patents and whether they do bring about the promotion of innovation in the current over monopolisation of knowledge, and whether they are adequate or appropriate as a mechanism for funding research and development in the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharmaceutical industry profits far exceed those of other industries, and far exceed the average budget set aside for research and development. Industry-stated costs for the research and development of new medicines are of themselves something that requires investigation.

Instead of innovation, pharmaceutical companies are re-prioritising marketing over research and development, with the priorities of those research resources being distorted and skewed. We want to look at alternative sources of funding, and different mechanisms for research and development. The advancement of medicines ensure our health and safety, so we will look at better ways of building upon our knowledge, and sharing it, rather than pursuing a stricter enforcement, higher prices and expansion of a system with serious flaws.

The Road Forward

Obviously, the Australian government alone can do very little, and the majority of action on a global scale so far has been for the stricter enforcement of patents, which do little to alleviate the inherent problems the current pharmaceutical patent structure is responsible for. There is an urgency for solutions - but change should be gradual and measured.

We already pay substaintially for research through grants, tax exemptions and credits, and through inflated prices in the PBS. So the public sector, directly and indirectly already pays for the majority of research and development. Most of the truly innovative advances come from public sector research.

The Pirate Party is also representative of shifting attitudes towards information and knowledge - we want a more open access, and freer systems for innovation. As increasing problems manifest in the pharmaceutical patent system, such as ever increasing prices and the restriction of access, the focus has been primarily on the stricter enforcement of patents as a means of funding pharmaceutical research and development, and an increasing push for the removal or weakening of government consumer protections for pharmaceuticals. The time has come to look at alternative models.

We say, there is merit in the construction of a biomedical research treaty at the international level in which the World Health Organisation is a main stakeholder, and would be a first positive step in recognising that there may be alternative ways of funding research and development, and allowing the benefit of that research to be more equitably applied. Patents are too indirect a measure for something as important medical research, and as we can see, the pharmaceutical industry cannot be shown to adequately respect the social responsibility of the monopoly they have been granted, except where they have made token gestures.

The Biomedical Research and Development Treaty (BRDT) would allow for the construction of an International Body for Medical Research (IBMR) and development which would be governed by democratic principles, and have an elected assembly. Funding for the independent body would be based upon each member states Gross Domestic Product, (GDP) with minimum funding being paid yearly to the newly created body, with changes to the minimum allowed to be increased through consensus of the elected officials.

The BRDT would employ mechanisms which would be created to distribute funds for adequate, stable financing for research and development to organisations that are qualified to do so. It would also place prioritisation of research for vaccines, neglected tropical diseases and infectious diseases, which would necessarily have to have a minimum amount of research and development for these priority classes.

There would be provision for the broader and more equitable dissemination of information and knowledge, more open access to scientific learning through databases and the research tools used, that the IBMR would maintain. This would help disseminate knowledge and aid the transfer of technology and medicines to developing nations.

All learning and development created from the IBMR would be disseminated under a license limiting patents in any jurisdiction by any entity, and as such can only operate if certain parts of the WTO TRIPs agreement were to be agreed to be set aside for purposes of the treaty. It is in the public interest, for scientific advancement and the betterment of humanity that such a treaty is necessary, and that public sector financing of pharmaceutical research is actually made freely accessible, allowing for more fairly priced medicines.

This is of course but one idea, that should be investigated by the Australian government. We want the Australian government to commission a report into alternative funding of pharmaceutical research and development. There are obvious flaws with the current model, and we must work to achieve something better. The time for change is now.

Privacy

The right to privacy is fundamental; one that underpins human dignity, freedom of expression and association. It is the freedom to control your cultural presence, the information and identity that surrounds you, as well as your physical privacy. A free and open democratic society cannot function without the protection of a person's private life and sphere. Neither the state or private organisations should have the right to intrude without restraint into an individual's autonomy or compromise that dignity.

Fear, combined with surreptitious and intrusive surveillance work, undermines the fabric of our open and democratic society. They compromise inalienable and unconditional rights, and do nothing to advance or protect us.

We hold this as one of our most important and cherished values within our democracy. We want to see tougher legislation and requirements for organisations retaining data and a withdrawal of power to perform surveillance without notification from government bodies.

We will oppose any legislation that seeks to compromise this right - it is not negotiable.

We oppose the practice of "Security Theatre," which sees governments and organisations implement policies that make people feel safe, without actually making those people safe. We support sensible security procedures that are demonstrably effective and are respectful of people's rights. An extension of this principle is to strongly limit the use of CCTV cameras, especially those that are linked into large networks, where nobody watches the watchers.

Transparency

Democracy is dependent on the transparency of its government, of law enforcement and in political lobbying. Access to the discussion and reasoning for decisions made, the laws, regulations and obligations of government authorities and an ability for citizens to participate in the decision making process. The digital environment enlarges the spaces for civic engagement, and provides a mechanism for openness in our democracy, and in our government, at all levels.

Whilst every individual citizen must have the right to protect their privacy, conversely the administration must not. It must be completely open and transparent.

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle of the internet, ensuring that it is free and open, that regardless of service provider, we all have access to the same internet - it prevents the blocking, speeding up or slowing down of content based on its source, destination or the owner of the content. Network operators do not decide whether using a particular service or application, what information should have priority over another. Their job is simply to carry data. A simple analogy might be the postal service. When we send a letter, we don't expect a decision to be made by inspecting the contents of the letter, or by looking at who the sender and recipient are. The postal service is simply paid to carry the letter. Another analogy may be the electric grid. It is a neutral network that does not care what you plug into it - and this provides a basis for the support of innovation and competition.

This principle is being threatened as content providers and telecommunication corporations begin to implement prioritisation of information and data flow. If this principle is ignored, there are harmful consequences to competition as service providers may preference or block protocols to force consumers to use other, more expensive services they may provide. It would also be harmful to innovation, as net neutrality ensures that even the smallest entrepreneurs, have the same access as leading firms. To remove this may see a crippling of new entrants, as they would struggle to compete on the uneven playing field the internet would become.

A free, open and non-discriminatory access to the internet is essential for our democracy, and for our economic well-being. Allowing discriminatory practices to develop would turn the internet into a predominantly commercial only zone significantly impairing participation, choice and diversity.

We need the adoption of clear net neutrality principles and regulations that ensure the treatment of lawful content, applications and services in a non-discriminatory manner.

No Censorship

Censorship is unacceptable in any free and liberal democratic society. The freedom of expression and the freedom of our communications is essential.

Internet Censorship

The current government intends to impose Mandatory Internet Filtering at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. This is essentially a national firewall akin to that in China and it will be imposed on all connections to the internet. All connections will be subject to the censorship prerogative of the Australian government via a blacklist maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The blacklist will be kept entirely secret, and will be used to censor all illegal and "unwanted" material. Obviously this leaves a wide scope for what material might be censored under the scheme.

The rationale behind the implementation of the filter is misguided, due to the the fact that the people the government is supposedly trying to prevent accessing certain material can easily access tools that allow circumvention. It will not achieve its 'stated' purpose. It is an example of Security Theatre.

Government, in combating abhorrent criminal activity like child pornography, should instead look at adequately funding law enforcement, and removing illegal content rather than funding a filter that slows connection speeds, is liable to wrongly block websites and is easily circumvented. It is a complete misallocation of public resources.

There is a distinct lack of transparency regarding the reasoning for the censorship regime, its implementation and subsequent operation. It is simply not a case of if it will be abused, and its scope expanded, but when.

If an individual wants to censor their own internet connection, that is their own prerogative - there are viable client-side alternatives. We do not object to government providing education or access to software to individuals who wish limit access to certain materials they personally deem morally objectionable for themselves or for their children, but we object to any government imposed censorship regime or a compromise of individual liberty. We do not want or need a nanny state.

We believe that parents should be allowed to control their own families, and the government should trust them to do so responsibly.

R18+ Classification

Adults should have the freedom to choose what sort of experience they wish to derive from any source of entertainment, and parents should have an appropriate guide as to how best to govern what they expose their children to. Presently there are issues with the current systems of classification enforced by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). The issues prevent this freedom of choice, and may actually work to expose children to content that, due to the inadequacies of the system, is potentially inappropriate. To that end, we support the creation of an R18+ category rating for computer games. The purposes of this policy are:

To allow games to be sold that would otherwise be refused classification;
To avoid the possibility of ratings, or the refusal thereof, being used to impinge on freedom of expression; and
To reduce the amount of legislation and enforcement that is required by the existing OFLC rating system.

This policy is not intended:

To legalise media that is explicitly illegal, such as under-age pornography; or
To impinge on parents' or guardians' rights to monitor and restrict their children's media consumption.

Overview

This policy is designed to make the media rating system optional and mostly self-regulating and allow retailers to distribute any legal media to anyone, subject to a code of practice, into which retailers can choose to opt.

The retail code of practice restricts retailers, to disallow sale of media to people under the age specified by the rating. This is to provide guidance to parents as to which retailers are suitable for their children, but it also recognises our global environment in which not all retailers are Australian.

Definitions

Rating: A mark applied to content that denotes the minimum appropriate age for purchasing or consumption of the content. Category: A sub-rating that denotes specific types of potentially age-inappropriate content. E.g. Sex, language, drugs, horror. Pinpoint references: A detailed pointer that allows a reviewer to find an alleged, specific breach of the rating scheme by following simple instructions.

New rating

The granular OFLC rating scheme that includes categories within each rating will be enhanced to include an R18+ rating for games.

Optional content rating

Content producers can opt into the rating scheme, allowing them to rate their own content.

Self-rating of media would be optional, but may still be submitted to the OFLC for approval. Should the recommended classification not be suitable as judged by OFLC standards, the classification may be changed accordingly without penalty.

In the case where the distributor chooses to not rate their media, it will be considered Unclassified which will be treated the same as the R18+ rating, but with no right to use OFLC marks. If the OFLC believes that some media is somehow not suitable for anyone, they can refused classification, but it will be treated as if the media was never rated. The OFLC may choose to compile a list of material that is refused classification for the purpose of informing the community about material that it deems inappropriate, however the list will not act to ban the material.

Anyone can object to a rating

An objection, including pinpoint references, will lead to the OFLC assessing the rating of the content.

If the OFLC determines that a rating is inaccurate, then one of the following will occur:

If the content is inaccurately rated, so that it should be in a lower rating, or the same rating with lower categories, then it is up to the publisher whether or not the content is re-rated.
If the content is inaccurately rated, so that it should be in the same rating with higher categories, the content must be re-rated.
If the content is inaccurately rated, so that it would go up to at least the next rating, then penalties would apply, with the penalty being commensurate with the inaccuracy of the rating. The product would need to be recalled with a corrected version issued.

Marks

Media that has been self-rated can display an official OFLC mark, which displays the minimum appropriate age for consumption, along with any classifications.
Media that has been self-rated and approved by the OFLC can display an OFLC mark that includes the information from the point above, but also includes an "approved," "certified" or similar mark, as defined by the OFLC.

Retailer code of conduct

Media that is not rated can be distributed, unrestricted with respect to ratings.

The above is subject to other legislation that makes media illegal for some other reason.
Unclassified media and media that has been refused classification by the OFLC are to be considered the same as R18+ content.

Retailers can sell whatever legal content they like, to whomever they like.

The above is subject to the following:

Retailers can opt into a code of practice. (Point for discussion - Optional or mandatory code of conduct)
If opted in, they must not distribute content to anyone who is not of an age specified by the rated content, unless:
1. The unrated material would, if rated, be allowed to be sold to the person.
If a customer appears, in the retailers opinion, to be at least 21, then proof of age need not be required to purchase R18+ or unrated material.
If a customer appears, in the retailers opinion, to be at least 25, then proof of age must not be required to purchase R18+ or unrated material.
Retailers who opt into the scheme must not sell unrated content to anyone under the age required for the highest rating.

Penalties for selling media inappropriately would vary with the severity of the offence and the frequency of offences.

Draft Platform