HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

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

Introduction and First Reading

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Read a first time.

Second Reading

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

That this bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank and acknowledge my colleague the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place for her extensive work and research on this topic back in 2010 when she successfully passed this legislation in the upper house. Unfortunately, when I took the same bill to the lower house with the full support of the Liberal Party, Labor opposed the bill and it failed.

In 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on the 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.

We have since had a change of government and, during Labor's term of government, nothing was actually changed in this area. We have since had a change of government so much so that now former committee member Senator Dana Wortley is now in this house as the member for Torrens which I welcome, and I hope that I will—

The SPEAKER: It would be better if the member for Adelaide did not quite deliberately breach standing orders by using people's Christian name and surname. We have that rule—

Ms SANDERSON: Senator Wortley?

The SPEAKER: —for a compelling reason. Now, that the member for Adelaide does not understand it is beside the point.

Ms SANDERSON: But when referring to a senator, you do use their name.

The SPEAKER: Yes.

Ms SANDERSON: And that is where I used it.

The SPEAKER: And should be referred to as the member for Torrens.

Ms SANDERSON: Right, thank you. Extensive worldwide research indicates that tweens by definition are children aged nine to 13 years and a particularly vulnerable and impressionable group of our society. This age group has a very slick advertising and marketing drive focused on it, and 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 and Girlfriend, were the focus of the 2008 Senate committee. After that Senate inquiry, there was actually a lot of public awareness and lots of lobby groups were set up. Along with Michelle, I attended quite a few of the forums that were held in different schools throughout South Australia and there were different websites such as Kids Free 2B Kids, Young Media Group, and Collective Shout organisations.

There really was a lot of interest in this topic and a lot of movement, so much so that the YWCA actually presented a paper and proposed that the South Australian government either amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act, as I am suggesting today, or introduce new legislation for the purpose of establishing a PG-type classification for girls' magazines sold in South Australia. I will read from their paper:

There is growing evidence in Australia and overseas that the sexualisation of children is having real and lasting health impacts. The 2007 American Psychological Association's 'Taskforce on the sexualisation of girls' has reported that:

'ample evidence indicates that sexualisation has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs.'

The research indicates that viewing material that is sexually objectifying is a contributing factor for:

body dissatisfaction

eating disorders

low self-esteem and depressive effects

physical health problems in high school aged girls and young women.

In Australia, experts in children's health and welfare agree that premature sexualisation places children at risk of a variety of harms, including disruption to healthy psychological development.

The most powerful sources of premature sexualisation are magazines and advertising which targets girls. Television programs, especially music video shows; teen soap operas and reality TV shows also play a role.

But magazines were found to be the most powerful source:

Each month, 26% of six year old girls and almost 50% of ten and eleven year old girls read at least one of the most popular magazines—Barbie Magazine, Total Girl and Disney Girl.

The 2008 Senate Inquiry considered the issue of girls' magazines at length and focused exclusively on Girlfriend and Total Girl. The report raised concerns about sexually explicit content as well as the age of readers.

Information supplied by Pacific Magazines—

the distributor of Girlfriend magazine—

in answer to a question taken on notice indicates that, although the average reader age is close to 16, around 20 per cent of Girlfriend's readership is between 11 and 12 years of age.

Recommendation 6 of the report of the 2008 Senate Inquiry is focused on girls' magazines:

'The committee recommends that publishers consider providing reader advice, based on the Office of Film and Literature Classification systems of classifications and consumer advice, on magazine covers indicating the presence of material that may be inappropriate for children.'

The YWCA of Adelaide supports the recommendation for a system of classification on magazine covers indicating the presence of material that may be inappropriate for children. We believe that the current classification system, under which children's magazines are classed as unrestricted publications, is insufficient to enable parents to make informed choices about the type or amount of sexual content seen by their children.

Responding to the rising community concern about the early sexualisation of young girls, the YWCA held a public forum…in 2009. The forum was chaired by Senator…Wortley, a member of the 2008 Senate Inquiry. The forum was overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed PG classification. Feedback since the forum and our online survey show strong community support to take action to protect girls from the negative impacts of early sexualisation.

The YWCA of Adelaide proposes that the South Australian government take the lead and introduce state based legislation to protect children. The YWCA also acknowledges that the National Classification Scheme is a joint enterprise of Federal, State and Territory Governments. However, the Scheme is not strictly uniform across all states and territories. For example, the South Australian Classification Council or Minister, may make classification decisions despite a Commonwealth classification being in existence, and such a classification will be afforded priority over Commonwealth classifications. South Australia also has a unique system of classifying theatrical performances. Theatrical performances can be, amongst other things, classified as unsuitable for children by the South Australian Classification of Theatrical Performances Board.

Whilst other media sources of sexualised messaging remain significant policy issues, particularly advertising and music video shows, these are difficult to address at the state level, and the YWCA of Adelaide believes that the focus on classification of girls' magazines is a meaningful way for the state government to provide leadership in the national debate, while acting to balance these different interests.

Whilst I realise the difficulty in having magazines distributed in South Australia that require a rating of PG, or M, or even a recommended age group on the front does have complications, I would refer the house to the fact that we are the only state that has a 10¢ deposit on cans and bottles. We are also the only state that has a system where you have to purchase plastic bags, so we all take our recycle bags to the supermarket. In this state, where there is the will there is a way to make a change on this very important issue.

Since 2010, when I first brought this through to the house, I have done a bit more work on it and recently I went to Sydney to meet with magazine companies; I met with ACP and had a conference call with Pacific Magazines. ACP, which distributes Dolly magazine (along with a few others) was fairly supportive, and I am trying to work them around to the idea that it would be better for them to show that they are responsible corporate citizens and that they would of their own volition put on the front of their magazine the suitable age category and be self-regulated so that we do not have to have people imposing fines and regulating.

I think that would draw awareness to their editors of the importance of being mindful of what is in the magazine and who that is aimed at and putting that on the front of the magazine. My preference would be that they take this up willingly, and I am still working with them and hope they will come around to that view. However, if they do not, we still have the legislative power, through the minister, to present guidelines that recommend the 'suitable for' or an age classification on the front or otherwise go with the PG or the M rating.

This year, with the number of schools I have in my electorate, I have probably toured several hundred school-age girls through Parliament House, and I have brought up this issue each time. There is overwhelming support for this—not only from children but from their parents and teachers who also attend the tour groups—and that it is confusing for a parent. A friend of mine who had a 16-year-old child at the time and one who was 11 was in the supermarket and picked up Girlfriend magazine for her 11-year-old daughter, and her 16-year-old daughter said, 'Mum, you can't buy that magazine; it's not suitable for her.' My friend said, 'Well, how would I know that? It's a young girl on the front, and it's all bright colours and pink.' How would a parent know that?

The use of a rating, or even just a 'suitable for' or 'recommended for ages over 12 or 13', whatever they determine their target market is, would make that so much more simple. To highlight that point, this year I went to a newsagent and asked for magazines that would be suitable for teenagers in an effort to go through and see if there had been many changes since 2010; even the girl who to me looked 17 or 18 and was working in the store could not easily identify for me which magazines were suitable for what age group—and this is a person working in a newsagency. How realistic is it to think that parents who are time poor, who are rushed at a supermarket by a child nagging them to buy a magazine, have time to read through a magazine cover to cover before either making the purchase decision or purchasing it and then reading the whole magazine before they decide whether that magazine is suitable to give to their child or children.

There was recent media on this story, when I first mentioned it was being introduced. The family that were in the photo shoot had one older child and two younger children, and they even said that it was important that there was a recommendation on there for even children within the one family so parents would know who that was aimed at and who it would be suitable for.

I must say, 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, but I think they can take this further and they really can show that they are good corporate citizens and that they do care about young people and the importance of their brain development and having information and visual pictures that are right for their age group.

I see my time is running down, so let me say in conclusion that I do believe this is important. I believe that the early sexualisation of children is detrimental to their cognitive, emotional and social development, as quoted by Rita Princi as well as even David Penberthy. When I spoke to him on FIVEaa he said, and I quote:

I think giving a parent an extra tool to make an informed judgement is a good thing.

I think there is more work to do on this, and I am hoping to work with government to see if they have any other ideas on how best to bring this bill through or what we can do to work with magazine companies. But it is all about protecting our children and letting parents be parents and making the decision but giving them the tools in order to make that right decision. I think that an easy 'suitable for' or 'recommended' or a 'PG' will make that easier for parents. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT