HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (R 18+ FILMS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:05) 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

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Family First strongly believes that parents should be able to take their children to a video store without having them exposed to pornographic or very violent video covers. However, this is becoming increasingly difficult and, in a moment, I will relay a personal experience I have had.

Currently, there are no laws in South Australia to prohibit video stores from mixing pornographic and violent adult videos from other material, including children's videos—that is, they can be found on the same shelf in a video store in South Australia. You can have a highly pornographic video right next to the Wiggles or some other feature targeted at children (even animated features) and there is nothing anyone can do about it under law, apart from lodging a complaint with the owner of the store. However, the owner of the store, under current law, is not obliged to take any action.

Further, there is no prohibition on the advertising and screening of R rated, 18 plus trailers within video stores, whether or not children may be present in those stores. There is no restriction on trailers or, indeed, just running in a store a particular video that may be R rated. The impetus behind this bill is a recent trip that I took to my local video store with my young daughter, who has just turned two. I went with her to get a video and we were looking for the type of cartoon she enjoys. She likes the Night Garden, and others with young children might be familiar with that series.

We were in our video store looking for that title when I noticed that, right next to the video that we were interested in hiring (a children's animated feature rated G, targeted at very young children of her age and around about that age), there was a highly explicit sexual video. It had very suggestive pictures on the cover and was at about knee height roughly, so it was very low to the ground and at about the eye level of a very young child.

I thought that it was something that should not be allowed, so I approached the person behind the counter, who referred me to the manager. I was not angry; I just had a question to ask. I wanted to see whether that was maybe a mistake, or what the situation was. I approached him politely and calmly and asked what the situation was. To his credit, he was also very polite and said that it was not normally the way they do things and that it was probably just a mistake.

He informed me that there was no formal legislation that he was aware of and, certainly, no directions from his particular chain of video stores that required him to keep either very violent videos or highly sexual videos in a particular section of the store. Specifically, there was no requirement to separate them from videos obviously targeted at children.

I decided to investigate the matter further. As I just indicated, I found out that there are no laws to govern that situation in South Australia. I was not aware that it was possible, but it is, upon looking at the lack of legislation. This bill specifies that R18+ (adult) videos must be kept in a separate marked area away from other general material, especially from children's viewing material. If that is not possible, and it may not be possible in every video store because some of them are quite small, the bill would then allow for the provision for highly sexual explicit or very violent videos to be presented within a blank cover.

The thrust of the bill is to place these videos quite separately from children's videos, in particular. It will also prohibit showing trailers or other promotional material with a rating of R18+ or greater; although, by law, one cannot show anything greater than that, but I am allowing for future changes that may come. Anything with an R18+ or higher cannot be shown within the store either as a trailer or a DVD running.

I have had the opportunity to write to all the major video chains about this proposal, and my office has also had some communication with the Commonwealth Classification Board. The board has confirmed that it also has concerns about this issue and noted that it apparently receives fairly regular complaints about it.

A representative from the Blockbuster chain, whom we contacted, noted that they suggested to all their franchisees that adult material should be kept in a separate section away from children's material but could not guarantee that their franchisees comply; that is, they make the recommendation, but compliance is not monitored. Family First is certainly appreciative of this guideline, but we also note the admission given to us by Blockbuster that it cannot control what its franchisees ultimately do.

We have had communications with the general manager of Civic Video, Mr Rod Laycock, who has written to me advising that in their stores they at least try to keep adult videos in a separate section. Further, they have a policy of not screening any trailers in their stores with a rating above M. He notes that they are mindful to do this because:

...our stores do attract family customers, and we do not wish to offend our younger customers with any excessive violence, sex scenes or language on a trailer display being played in our stores.

We are certainly appreciative of Civic Video's stand in this matter but, unfortunately, not all video stores will hold themselves to the same standard; indeed, I think my experience is proof of that. Family First has received several complaints about this matter during the time that I have been in this place, primarily about very explicit video covers being located literally right next to a children's video on the shelf and often at a height where children can see it, as was my experience.

The fact that we have had a number of these complaints and the fact that we have had communication with all the major chains and no-one is able to categorically rule out this practice occurring at the moment indicates that there is a problem and that, in our view, something should be done about it. It may be that, although most video stores used to be more inclined to do the right thing in keeping the adult videos separate from the children's videos, their compliance level at this time is not at the same level as it once was.

In any event, I believe it is appropriate that we set in place some guidelines; hence, this bill. I believe that most families will appreciate this initiative, particularly parents with young children, which will mean that they can go to a video store without having to be concerned about what their children will or will not see, whether it be on the video covers themselves or on the monitors within the video store running the DVDs.

A preliminary reaction that I got to this proposal is that classification is a federal issue. That is true; however, I am assured by parliamentary counsel and other advice that I have had and, indeed, via my office's discussions with the Commonwealth Classification Board, that, although classification is a national process carried out by the Commonwealth Classification Board, states and territories are responsible for enforcement and can impose local rules. The Northern Territory and the ACT, for example, have their own rules allowing X-rated material, which is banned in all states of Australia.

Pornography has negative effects on children. It teaches them the wrong lessons about intimacy and sexuality and is not geared towards more beneficial long-term sexual intimacy. It is coupled with an obvious objectification of women. I for one believe that it causes tremendous damage to young people. Indeed, there has been a great deal of work to support that.

The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 70 per cent of young children who view pornography have often stumbled across it perhaps while online researching for an assignment, but perhaps also when coming across it by accident at a local video store.

A Heritage Foundation study reports that the harm from overexposure to pornography in children includes: an overestimation of the prevalence of practices such as group sex, bestiality and sadomasochism; perceiving promiscuity as normal; developing cynical attitudes about relationships as a whole; and viewing the idea of raising children and having a family as unattractive prospects.

The report also noted that boys begin to view girls as nothing more than sex objects, in many cases. Girls begin to think that, in order to achieve their objectives romantically, they need to become a sex object; so the report states. No wonder that a recent survey found that body image is now the primary concern—not a primary concern but the primary concern—within some groups of even very young children.

A high prevalence of pornography was listed as a possible link to child abuse in some Aboriginal communities and has been banned in Northern Territory communities during the ongoing intervention.

I want to thank some members for the in principle support that they have already given to this proposal even before the introduction of the bill, and I thank in particular the Attorney-General for his comments on FIVEaa on 17 March this year, including the comment that 'Dennis Hood and Family First are right about this.' I would also like to thank the shadow attorney-general for her comment when she noted that some people '...think that politicians are forever arguing with each other, but there's a lot of times when we're actually singing from the same song sheet.' Of course, she was saying that in reference to the comments I had made on the air that day. I hope that we can sing from the same song sheet about this.

I am also grateful for the in principle support that the Hon. Mark Parnell gave on the radio on the same day. I will not for one moment indicate that he said that he will support the bill, but he did give in principle support to the concept on air. The honourable member confirmed the problem on radio by saying:

I have gone into video shops with small kids and yes, the Gs, especially the new release section, they've often got them lumped all together—the Gs are next to the Rs. I've got no problem at all with keeping the R videos separate from the G videos.

I thank him for what appears to be in principle support, as I do other members who have privately intimated support for the idea to me. Of course, if there are any other proposals or comments that members would like to make, I would be very keen to hear those.

It is a very simple bill and what we are trying to do is ensure that, when young kids, particularly, go into video stores, they are not exposed to things that I think any parent (or even non-parent) would agree is not to their benefit. For that reason, if this bill passes, it will mean that video stores will have to have a separate section. They can still rent these videos; that is completely their right and their choice to do so, they just need to keep them away from children's videos. I commend the bill to members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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