CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (PARENTAL GUIDANCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to speak to this bill, which has come from another place. The idea for the formation of the bill came from the YWCA, which is concerned, as are a number of parents and other community groups, about the sexualisation of children in various forms of media, from magazine to video clips. This bill targets magazines aimed at pre-teen and teenage children by requiring such magazines to have a classification marking on them of either PG or M. This will then provide some guidance for parents about whether the content is appropriate for their children.

As I have stated in this house before, many members know that I come to this house after more than 16 years of owning and managing a modelling agency and training school. During this time I have been entrusted with thousands of children and teenagers to build their self-esteem and give them life skills, including the skills used in the modelling industry, such as deportment and grooming. Although not a parent, I had a duty of care to ensure that an underage model represented by my agency was protected and not exploited by society. I believe that body image and the sexualisation of children is a huge issue, and the media has played a big role in the problems we are now facing.

In 2008 the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts held an inquiry into the sexualisation of children in contemporary media. The committee's findings outlined a number of recommendations to the then Rudd Labor government in relation to the inappropriate sexualisation of our children through the electronic and print media. The committee recommended that publishers consider providing parental reading advice based on the Office for Film and Literature Classification systems of classification and consumer advice on magazine covers indicating the presence of material that may be inappropriate for children of certain ages.

The federal government has the ability to act on the committee's recommendations. However, it has failed to act appropriately on such findings. Extensive worldwide research indicates that 'tweens', by definition children aged nine to 13 years of age, are a particularly vulnerable and impressionable group in our society. This age group has a very slick advertising and marketing drive focused on it. Tweens often receive a level of independence from their parents to purchase, with their own pocket money, magazines such as Total Girl, Girlfriend or Dolly. Such magazines, particularly Dolly or Girlfriend, regularly include sealed sections which contain highly sexualised content on the pretext of providing information to readers. Such sealed sections often include question-and-answer formats on topics that include sexual issues. While this may be considered appropriate information for girls over 15 or 16, a reader survey indicated that approximately 20 per cent of readers are girls aged 11 and 12. Such magazines are not required to meet any classification requirements and, as a rule, are not observed by the Classifications Board until a complaint is made.

Whilst I acknowledge that primary responsibility for many purchasing decisions such as clothing, magazines and DVDs falls on parents, I believe it is unreasonable to place all responsibility on parents to control access to media. I believe there is a role for government to play in supporting and assisting parents and caregivers in managing young people's access to media. For example, I spoke to a lady just last week who has both a 16-year-old and an 11-year-old daughter. She was at the checkout to buy a Girlfriend magazine when her 16 year old said, 'Mum, you can't buy that for her. She is too young.' She asked how a parent is supposed to know, with a magazine title like Girlfriend or Dolly. There is no way for most adults to know the content of the magazine, so I believe that these recommendations are very important.

South Australia is in a unique position to make a decision in relation to publications, films and computer games. This bill does not set out to tell parents what they can and cannot buy for their children; it merely provides parents with an immediate visual classification understanding of the magazine so that they can deem whether or not the content is appropriate for their child. I hope members opposite will support a bipartisan approach to acknowledge that we have a moral responsibility to assist parents and children to readily and critically assess the content of print media. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (10:37): I commend the member for Adelaide for her attention to this serious matter; however, the government will not support the bill, the main reason being that it is not appropriate for this house to deal with this matter.

I, and in fact the government in general, share the concern about the sexualisation of children. Indeed, on a number of occasions I have been distressed even by performances in schools where I have thought children have been inappropriately sexualised, and wonder if I am just getting so old that I see things as inappropriate that younger people do not. However, I think it is time we made a stand, and I commend the YWCA on the actions it has taken in this area.

I think people who have been here for a while would know that I have been a very strong supporter of Young Media Australia over many years, and, indeed, have been of some value in assisting it secure funding from the state government. The commitment of this state government in supporting parents to allow them to make appropriate choices has been quite unparalleled. When the Howard government cut off funding to Young Media Australia, which is a national organisation, it was the South Australian government, through a series of grants from the then minister for the status of women (the member for Ashford), sitting behind me, the former attorney general (the Hon. Michael Atkinson), and the Premier's department—grants from the South Australian government from a range of agencies—that kept Young Media Australia going.

I think the credentials of the Rann government in relation to its commitment to supporting parents to bring up their children in a situation of innocence and appropriate development in terms of sexual activity is quite outstanding. So, the fact that we cannot support this particular bill should not be read in any way to the detriment of the Rann government's credentials in this area.

I will go into the technical reasons of why we are not able to support the bill. It amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995—South Australia's National Classification Scheme legislation. The NCS is a joint commonwealth, state and territory legislative and administrative scheme, under which publications, films and computer games are classified, and their advertising, sale, demonstration and exhibition regulated.

The commonwealth legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995:

establishes the Classification Board;

determines the types of classifications that apply to publications, films and computer games;

empowers the Classification Board to classify publications, films and computer games;

sets out the procedures the Classification Board follows in making its classification decisions; and

establishes a review mechanism, the Classification Review Board, which, on application reviews decisions made by the Classification Board.

Each state and territory has enacted its own enforcement legislation. These acts determine how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated, in each state or territory. The South Australian enforcement act is the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.

Unlike other jurisdictions, South Australia maintains its own separate classification regime, that can, if triggered, classify publications, films and computer games independently of the commonwealth boards. The classification bodies under the South Australian act are the South Australian Classification Council and minister. When classifying publications, films and computer games, the council and the minister have basically the same powers as the commonwealth boards, and like the boards must classify in accordance with the national classification code and the classification guidelines issued under the commonwealth act. A classification decided by the council, or minister, has effect to exclude any classification of the same publication, film or computer game, under the commonwealth act.

In addition to the power to classify a publication, film or computer game, the commonwealth boards and, by virtue of section 21 of the South Australian act, the South Australian council or minister may, or must, depending on the classification given, determine consumer advice giving information about the content of the publication, film or computer game.

As this bill contains amendments relevant to publications, it is worthwhile briefly considering the classifications of publication under the NCS. Publication is defined very broadly to mean 'any written or pictorial material other than a film, computer game or an advertisement for a publication, film or computer game'.

Under the NCS legislation, code and guidelines, publications are either submittable, meaning they must be submitted for classification by the board, or not submittable. A submittable publication is one that, having regard to the classification code and guidelines, contains depictions or descriptions that:

are likely to cause the publication to be classified RC;

are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that the publication should not be sold or displayed as an unrestricted publication; or

are unsuitable for a minor to see or read.

The point of the submittable/non-submittable distinction is to ensure that publications that contain material that is below that which would attract a restricted classification, do not have to be submitted for classification. When one considers the content of non-submittable publications, and the number of magazines, books, pictures etc., that are published and released for sale in the market each year, the logic of this becomes apparent.

Once submitted, a publication must be classified in descending order:

Refused Classification or RC;

Category 2 Restricted;

Category 1 Restricted; or

Unrestricted.

A publication will be classified RC if it, first, describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena, in such a way as to offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified; secondly, describes or depicts in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or thirdly, promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence.

A publication (other than one that must be classified RC) will be classified category 2 restricted if it: explicitly depicts sexual or sexually-related activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult or depicts, describes or expresses revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult and is unsuitable for a minor to see or read.

Category 1 restricted is the lowest of the restricted classifications. A category 1 restricted publication is one that:

explicitly depicts nudity, or describes or impliedly depicts sexual or sexually-related activity between consenting adults, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or

describes or expresses in detail violence or sexual activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or

is unsuitable for a minor to see or read.

I do not think I will have time to proceed with some of the background detail as to what is currently in place and why the current bill is not acceptable.

I will move to some of the concluding remarks. I ask honourable members to think about all the magazines (women's magazines, so-called lads' magazines, health magazines), novels (crimes, thrillers, romance, supernatural), prints, paintings, etc., that contain material that some children under the age of 15 might find confusing or upsetting, or which discuss one or more of the classifiable elements (themes, sex, violence, language, drug use, nudity) in a mild way. I do not have the figures, but would conservatively estimate the number would run into the thousands each year.

Under these amendments, the council or a minister would be required to examine any magazine, book, picture, etc., reported to him or her as potentially containing PG material and be forced to assess and, if appropriate, require the relevant consumer advice to be attached. Even if the government was prepared to run a passive complaints-based system, a new administrative structure would have to be established. This structure would have to include trained assessors and a support structure to receive and process complaints and notifications. The current system—the minister's office and SACC—is simply not set up to deal with this. There is no administrative structure.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:47): I commend the member for Adelaide and, I understand, the Hon. Michelle Lensink for what they are trying to do here. I heard the member for Reynell pointing out some of the difficulties and inadequacies (as she sees it) with the bill. I would point out to the member for Reynell and others that they can always amend a bill if they can come up with a better version.

There has been a lot of debate recently about the sexualisation of young girls in particular. I think it probably applies to young boys as well, but from a different perspective. Malcolm Muggeridge once said that our society has sex on the brain, which is the worst place to have it. I think it is—

Mr Pengilly: Dangerous too.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I cannot speak from experience on that point. I will have to take your word for it. We are—and I am talking about society in general—hypocritical, because on the one hand, at the adult level, we seem to delight in an obsessive interest in other people's sexual activities, alleged or otherwise. We are also obsessed with violence as a community. You only have to look at television, which I try to avoid, and films and videos. I think there is clear research evidence that violence is more harmful than any explicit depiction of the human body or even sexual activity.

I have had a close look at the whole issue of the research into child pornography and other pornography. It is not an easy subject to define, and I would challenge anyone in here to come up with a simplistic definition of pornography that goes beyond something like, 'To stimulate sexual interest or awareness'.

I noticed in a Melbourne paper this week that Bonds—which is one of those famous Australian companies—is now producing 'bralettes' for girls under the age of 10. I have two little granddaughters, one aged four and the other five; and, from my understanding of anatomy, I do not believe that, as a general rule, girls under the age of 10 need to wear a bra. So, what we have is one of the largest manufacturers now promoting that here following the trend in the United States.

It is often said that we do not allow children to be children any more; they are constantly subjected to a barrage of information, propaganda and influence from not only magazines but all areas of what you might call mass communications. So, I think the intent of this bill is good. This is a related issue, but it is ironical and sad that the term 'paedophile' or 'paedophilia', if you go back and look at it in terms of its linguistic origin, actually means 'lover of children'. Now it has become distorted to be used to describe people who abuse children sexually and take advantage of them.

As a society, I do not think we have really got to a sensible point in how to deal with what is an important aspect of our lives and that is sexuality. We have a lot of hypocrisy and double standards and it is not surprising that people in the community try to impose that and, in effect, direct their activities towards young children.

It is interesting that, if you look at the magazines that are targeting young girls and young women, they have a very explicit sexual theme. They also convey other, probably useful, information, and it is interesting that we do not have an equivalent type of magazine for young boys and young men. In some ways that may be a good thing, but it would be desirable if it discussed issues about changing body shape and emotions and so on to inform young boys—and the same would apply if it helped to inform young girls.

However, what we are seeing is this relentless propaganda and it afflicts society at large in that, somehow, our whole life is dependent on sexuality and sexual function. It has got to a point where our society is obsessed with sexual aspects and then violence, and then it is not surprising that people link the two and we find people combining violence with sexual activity, usually to the detriment of women in our society.

I commend the member for what she is seeking to do here, and I think that, if the government wants to come on board, it could come up with a proposal which is more adequate and more comprehensive, as outlined by the member for Reynell. I think it is the responsibility of all of us to try to not only protect children but also ensure that our society is a healthy, happy one. I think there are elements within the wider communication industry that are currently exploiting and seeking to exploit young people, particularly young girls.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.