Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Publications - Parental Guidance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2015).

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (10:45): On behalf of the Attorney-General, I move:

That all words after the word 'be' be left out and the words 'withdrawn and referred to the Social Development Committee for its report and recommendation' be inserted in lieu thereof.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (10:45): The government shares the concern of parents and others about the influence the media has on young people; however, this bill is not an appropriate or practical way to address those concerns. The bill is intended to provide the South Australian Classification Council with power to determine consumer advice for publications that it classifies as 'unrestricted'.

The consumer advice may include PG (parental guidance recommended for children under 15) or M (mature, not recommended for children under 15). The National Classification Board, when classifying a publication as 'unrestricted' may already determine consumer advice of M—mature consumer advice, as defined by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Markings and Consumer Advice) Determination 2014.

'Publication' is defined very widely in the act. It means 'any written or pictorial matter that is not a film or computer game or an advertisement for a publication, film or computer game.' I know that the intention is to target specific publications, but that is not the effect of the bill. It will apply to all publications. 'Publication' is defined very widely. It means 'any written or pictorial matter' except a film, computer game or an advertisement for a publication, film or computer game. 'Publish' includes 'sell, offer for sale, let on hire, exhibit, display, distribute and demonstrate'.

The current South Australian classification scheme, including compliance monitoring, is not designed to manage a large-scale classification process. The council operates on an ad hoc basis and has no dedicated administrative support. It met once in the 2011-12 reporting year, at a cost of $1,275, and it did not meet at all in the 2013-14 reporting period.

During the 2011-12 reporting period, the council considered three greeting cards, following a complaint from a member of the public, and declined to classify the greeting cards because they did not exceed the guidelines. Apart from the probable impact on the council, South Australian retailers would bear the responsibility for marking each and every magazine offered for sale every week with the determined marking, and police would be responsible for monitoring compliance with that requirement. This is just not practical.

The fact that the member for Adelaide has raised the issue of classifying girls' magazines, and that it has again grabbed some media attention, is not a bad thing. As a former teacher of what are fondly referred to as 'tweenagers' as well as young teenagers, I know the importance of age-appropriate material.

I was a member of the 2008 Senate committee that was set up to examine the strategies to prevent and/or reduce the sexualisation of children in the media, and the effectiveness of different approaches in ameliorating its effects. It concluded that it did not believe that the National Classification Board should be given the responsibility for classifying girls' magazines, nor did it agree with an age-appropriate rating, given that teenagers and tweens will not all mature at the same rate. It did, however, recommend that publishers consider providing reader advice based on the existing classifications and consumer advice on magazine covers indicating the presence of material that may be inappropriate for children.

During the inquiry, publishers took on board the issues raised about magazine covers, body image, photoshopping and content, and I have continued to follow it with interest. Generally, there has been significant improvement with publications, addressing concerns raised through the Senate inquiry. The member observed this herself, saying:

...when I was comparing the magazines from the bill in 2010 to the magazines now, there has been a vast and dramatic improvement, which I am very pleased about. There is less touching up of photos and I have not seen any sealed sections in there that there used to be, so I do commend the magazine companies for their improvement...

The recommendation that publishers consider providing reader advice when there is the presence of material that may be inappropriate for children was and continues to remain sound. This is if and when a girls' magazine contains the material that may be inappropriate.

Renewed interest by the media, the parliament and members of the public ensures publishers continue to self-monitor their output. The government, however, does not think the bill before us today is an appropriate or practical way to address the concerns raised and therefore recommends that the issue be referred to the parliament's Social Development Committee.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:50): I would like to thank the member for Torrens for her ongoing work. We have met many times on this very important issue, and I would also like to acknowledge her work as part of the Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children. I note that, whilst changing this bill is not the ideal way of going about this important issue, I think it does raise awareness, and the fact that we are actually talking about it in parliament and that there has been media coverage is part of the point. I do acknowledge that after the Senate inquiry there have been very important changes made to magazines.

The idea that I had was really to inform many parents and caregivers who have expressed to me that they are unsure as to what magazines are appropriate for what age children. From speaking to many schoolchildren—I do lots of tours of Parliament House—there was pretty well consensus about having some indication on a magazine, whether it was just an age recommendation or something preferably of a voluntary nature by the magazine producers and distributors, so that parents, children and caregivers could actually make an informed decision. It was never about restricting trade or trying to stop things from being out there, but letting parents make that decision as to what is appropriate for their child. As we know, children develop at all different ages, and what might be appropriate for one person's 11 year old might not be appropriate for another's 13 year old, so the idea was really to just have a recommendation.

I am very pleased that the magazines have less airbrushing so that they are more realistic. We do know that body image and self-esteem is greatly affected by the visual images that children see, whether it be on television, the internet or magazines. I welcome the idea of this going to the Social Development Committee so that we can look into this and investigate it further and see if there are better ways to achieve a similar outcome. I thank the member for Torrens for her ongoing work and interest in this topic and I support the recommendation for the amendment.

Motion carried; bill withdrawn.