Colin Barnett
WA State Government
Member of the Legislative Assembly
Liberal Party
Electorate: Cottesloe
Complaints by the WA Liberals saw the game MANHUNT banned in Australia.
WA opposition wants violent video game banned
Perth
August 16, 2004 - 8:51AM
The West Australian opposition has appealed to the censorship committee of the Office of Film and Literature Classification to ban one of the most violent video games ever produced.
The game Man Hunt, which is rated MA 15+, features violent and graphic murder scenes and has been blamed for the murder in February of a 14-year-old British boy.
Opposition Leader Colin Barnett said today the game encouraged the player to kill in the most gruesome manner possible.
"Players are required to viciously murder other characters even after they pleaded for their lives," Barnett said.
"When I watched this game, I was absolutely horrified. It is not a video game that I would want any children to be exposed to," he said.
Barnett, who has four sons, said he wanted Western Australia to follow in the footsteps of New Zealand and ban the game.
The game has been described on the internet as being an exploration of "the depths of human depravity in a vicious and sadistic tale of urban horror."
English woman Giselle Pakeerah told reporters that she blamed the game for her son Stephan's death after he was murdered by being repeatedly stabbed with a claw hammer in February.
She said her son's 17-year-old killer, who was allegedly obsessed with the game, had mimicked the Man Hunt video quest by carrying out a brutal killing.
***
Quoted from:
'Manhunt' sparks censorship row.
ABC Online 15.08.04
Western Australia's Opposition Leader Colin Barnett says the states should have censorship powers.
"To make sure that any material like this that got through the national censorship net could be declassified and therefore removed from sale or hire in Western Australia,"
***
As leader of the WA Liberal party he took the following policies to the 2005 State election.
Quoted from:
Coalition will restore State’s censorship
powers
December 5th 2004
A Coalition Government will take back the right to ban video games, movies
and other publications the community believes are overly violent or
contain content that could harm Western Australian children.
Launching the Coalition position statement Protecting Our Children: A
Commonsense Approach to Classification and Censorship with Shadow
Children’s Minister Barbara Scott today, Opposition Leader Colin Barnett
said Western Australia should have the power to overrule national Office
of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) ratings in the interests of
protecting WA children.
The commitment also includes:
· A plan to present a formal request to the Federal Government and State
Attorneys General to change guidelines for computer game classifications
to prevent children accessing material containing excessive violence or
gratuitous sexual imagery.
· Lobbying for the introduction of G rating sub-categories to ensure
material within the classification contains age-based advisory categories
to help parents more accurately choose age-appropriate material for their
children.
· A plan to formally request the removal of an allowance for
“discreet” drug use and nudity to be “justified by context” in
some G-rated material.
· A range of proposals to improve restrictions to the access of
inappropriate Internet material by children.
“By taking back WA’s censorship powers, the Coalition is putting in
place a safety net that allows the State Government to immediately deal
with inappropriate publications that fall through the cracks of the
national censorship program,” Mr Barnett said.
“The Coalition recognises that there is merit in the Federal censorship
system but there is little doubt that material is sometimes released with
inappropriate classifications that allow it to be accessed by children.
What the Coalition is proposing is a system that can deal with that
eventuality swiftly.”
Mr Barnett said a prime example of why the State needed censorship powers
was the MA15+ rating of the Manhunt video game, which encouraged players
to kill in the most gruesome and violent manner possible.
It took lobbying from Mrs Scott before the video game was declassified so
that it could not be sold or rented to WA children.
“Clearly the classification given to this video game was inappropriate,
yet it took months for it to be withdrawn. Under the changes the Coalition
would introduce, the State Government could have declassified the game
immediately and stopped more WA children being exposed to it,” Mr
Barnett said.
Mrs Scott said that as well as re-introducing the State’s censorship
powers, the Coalition would ask State and Federal Attorneys General to
alter the guidelines for the classification of computer games to prevent
children accessing games that contained excessive violence or gratuitous
sexual imagery.
It would also lobby for the introduction of aged based advisory categories
such as G, G8+ and G13+.
“In 2003, Attorney General Jim McGinty supported the introduction of new
classification guidelines that allow drug use and nudity to be displayed
within the limits of G ratings,” Mrs Scott said.
“The allowance for “discreet” drug use and for nudity to be
“justified by context”, as set out by the OFLC is inappropriate for
viewing designed largely for children.
“The introduction of G rating subcategories will allow the G rating to
better cater for the varying developmental levels of children under the
age of 15 and restore parental confidence in the classification.”
The Coalition will also monitor increasing use of the Internet and its
impact on underage consumers by:
· Initiating a process of constant review to identify controls that can
effectively restrict children’s access to inappropriate material on the
internet;
· Examining options to provide families with the means of restricting
children’s access to inappropriate material on the Internet, including
software subsidies and education campaigns for children and parents;
· Implementing formal monitoring of web marketing practices aimed at
underage consumers;
· Developing and regulating a Code of Practice for the publication of
adult oriented material on the Internet from within Western Australia; and
· Maintaining pressure at a national and international level to establish
and enforce standards that ensure children are protected from exposure to
inappropriate materials on the Internet.
“The community expects leadership from Government on these issues and
that is exactly what the Coalition plans to provide,” Mr Barnett said.
The Protecting Our Children: A Commonsense Approach to Classification and
Censorship position statement is available on the Leader of the
Opposition’s website at www.loop.wa.gov.au.
Guy Barnett
Tas Federal
Member of the Senate
Liberal Party
His November 2005 press release titled 'Ban Access To Porn And Extreme Violence On Internet' argued for internet regulation to protect children. However, this final paragraph shows that he has Adults in mind as well.
The Australia Institute survey found that a much more effective method of restricting access of children to Internet sex sites would be to require all Australian ISPs to apply filters to all content, with some managed exemptions for adult users.
"....with some managed exemptions for adult users." goes beyond protecting kids, to include all Australian Adults.
On December 8th 2005, a revised version of his press release was published in The Age. Titled 'Keeping kids from nasties on the net' In it he states:
This reform would be supported by parents and would have the effect of filtering out pornography at home and on public sites, with the onus being on adult users to apply for unrestricted access if they wish.
So one month on we have gone from:
"...with some managed exemptions for adult users."
to
"..... unrestricted access if they wish."
Which one do you believe?
***
He released the following media release the day after the ALP proposed to censor the internet.
Guy Barnett
Liberal Senator for Tasmania
Media Release
Barnett Urges Action To Ban Internet Porn
And Violence
Wednesday, 22 March 2006
Senator Guy
Barnett today urged the Australian Government to take whatever action was
possible to protect children from internet pornography and violence.
“What can be done should be done to protect our children from internet
porn and violence, whether it occurs in public places or the home. Recent
surveys show that most parents support this action,” Senator Barnett
said.
Late last year Senator Barnett authored a letter to the Prime Minister,
co-signed by 62 of his Coalition colleagues, seeking national action on
internet pornography and violence.
The letter proposed that internet pornography and violence be
automatically banned in both the home and public places. Where an adult
wished to have access to this material they would have to apply to an
appropriate internet server provider for access.
(For a copy of Senator Barnett’s speech to the Senate last year on
internet porn and violence click on Speeches on this website
www.guybarnett.com)
***
Guy Barnett
Liberal Senator for Tasmania
Media Release
Tackling Internet Porn and Extreme Violence
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
‘Every Australian has a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence’
Senator Guy Barnett today revealed how he has secured offers from two companies based in the United States and Sydney to trial free of charge the removal of internet pornography and extreme violence across Tasmania for three months.
The trial is the first of its kind in Australia and if proven could become the forerunner to operate across Australia. The two companies, in Launceston today for the announcement are rulespace based in Beaverton, Oregon, and Sydney based company Internet Sheriff Technology.
“The filtering proposal would allow adult internet users to opt-out to have access to internet pornography if they wished. However, my objective will always be that every Australian has a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence,” Senator Barnett said.
Senator Barnett said a survey of public libraries in NSW, Victoria and the ACT released last month and undertaken by the Australian Family Association found that 77% did not have any filtering.
In 2003 a survey by the Australia Institute called Regulating Youth Access to Pornography found that 84% of boys and 60% of girls had been accidentally exposed to pornographic material on the internet, while two in every five boys had deliberately used the internet at some stage to see sexually explicit material.
“The survey found that 93% of parents were in favour of filtering out pornography available on the home computer, let alone those in public buildings. The survey also drew a link between prolonged exposure to this material and tolerance of sexual aggression,” Senator Barnett said.
He said he expected the trial to start mid year and would liaise with the Minister for Communications’ office regarding the outcomes of the trial.
In November last year Senator Barnett authored a letter to the Prime Minister on internet pornography and extreme violence, and was supported with the signatures of more than 60 of his Coalition colleagues.
***
Guy Barnett
Liberal Senator for Tasmania
Media Release
Families Urged To Lobby Telstra and Optus Over Internet Porn Trial
Wednesday, 19 April 2006
‘Every Australian has a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence’
Senator Guy Barnett today urged Tasmanian customers of Telstra and Optus who support the trial of internet pornography filtering to lobby the telcos to take party in the mid-year trial.
“I am disappointed that these two giant Internet Service Providers appear to be snubbing their noses at a trial being offered at no cost to either them or their customers,” Senator Barnett said.
“I call on Telstra and Optus to be good corporate citizens. I urge them to recognise the extent and depth of their duty of care as internet providers and take part in the trial.
Senator Barnett said he would write to both telcos, asking them to reconsider their current decision not participate in the trial.
“In the United States 80% of ISPs provide internet filtering for free. If Telstra and Optus are so convinced that current safeguards are adequate and therefore they are so sure that a trial would show this to be the case, they would surely have no problems with an ISP-based trial offered free of charge,” he said.
“They may say that the current safeguards are okay, but the community is saying to me the current safeguards are not okay. I urge all Tasmanian internet customers of Telstra and Optus to email or write to them and request that they participate in the trial.
“All of these customers have a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence, and it is the duty of the internet provider to constantly explore ways of updating this level of service and protection,” he said.
Last week Senator Barnett revealed how he has secured offers from two companies based in the United States and Sydney to trial free of charge the removal of internet pornography and extreme violence across Tasmania for three months.
The trial is the first of its kind in Australia and if proven could become the forerunner to operate across Australia. The two companies are rulespace based in Beaverton, Oregon, and Sydney based company Internet Sheriff Technology.
The filtering companies say they have the agreement of a number of ISPs who would be involved in a Tasmanian trial. Telstra and Optus constitute the remainder of ISPs
The filtering proposal is not intended as a blanket prohibition on access by adults to internet pornography or extreme violence. The filtering would allow adult internet users to opt-in to have access to this medium if they wished.
“The objective in the first instance is to protect children, before we consider the rights of adults,” Senator Barnett said.
***
Quoted from:
Internet raises Lib's ire. Courier Mail 02.02.07
Senator Barnett said yesterday it was vital the
software, which blocks X-rated sites and offensive words, was available as
soon as possible.
"People are very worried about offensive material on the web and
elsewhere and they are concerned for their children,"
"I am a big supporter of ISP-level filtering as long as it can be
proved to be effective,"
"It has the potential to alleviate a lot of the concerns of families
and provide better protection for children."
Peter Beattie
Qld State
Member of Parliament
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Brisbane Central
In August 2005 the Queensland Premier called for the two games, FABLE, and GETTING UP: CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE, to be banned.
Premier & Treasurer
The Hon. Peter Beattie MP
11 August 2005
Beattie Urges National Ban On Graffiti Video Game
Premier Peter Beattie is calling for a national ban on a new video game that glorifies graffiti and law-breaking.
He said the game 'Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure', has not yet been released in Australia, "and I hope it never is".
"If the pre-release publicity and media reporting on this game are factual, then there is a compelling case for banning it from sale throughout Australia," Mr Beattie said.
"It glorifies high-risk, law-breaking, violent and even deadly behaviour.
"It flagrantly promotes graffiti (including the highly dangerous tagging of the inside of railway subways & entire rail carriages) and other civil disobedience.
"It makes heroes of a cast of reckless characters.
"One of them is described as "the notorious 'Bronx bomber and destroyer' " and another has supposedly taught a fellow tagger to "bomb entire subway cars".
"From a gaming point of view, I am told it is very slick and will appeal to 10 - 30 year old males.
"It has worrying potential to steer impressionable young people into activities that will endanger life and limb and earn them criminal records."
Mr Beattie has written to the Federal Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, asking him to take whatever action is needed to impose a national ban.
"Anything less than a national ban would not prevent young people from accessing the game," Mr Beattie said.
The Premier told Queensland Parliament he was also concerned about another video game, which is said to promote violence against women.
'Fable' is sold in Australia with a M15+ classification and the consumer advice "medium level animated violence".
Women's groups have complained that it encourages male violence against women.
"Domestic violence is a crime. It can be murder, it can maim, and it can leave women and children traumatised and emotionally scarred," Mr Beattie said.
"The government encourages creativity and Queensland's home-grown computer game industry.
"But we condemn the glorification of violence to young people."
"The Office of Fair Trading's classifications officer is examining Fable.
"If it is determined that the game promotes violence, we will not hesitate in asking the Federal Government to take action."
Cory Bernardi
SA Federal
Member of the Senate
Liberal Party
Gordon Ramsay's bad language in KITCHEN NIGHTMARES was the subject of a speech by Cory Bernardi in March 2008.
ADJOURNMENT: Obscene Language on Television
Date 18 March, 2008
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Bernardi, Sen Cory (LP, South Australia, Opposition)
Interjector Mason, Sen Brett
Page 86
Proof Yes
Source Senate
Type Speech
Context Adjournment
ADJOURNMENT Obscene Language on Television
Speech Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (9.54 p.m.)—I begin my address this evening by stating for the record that I am not a wowser. I have a broad acceptance of the Australian vernacular and the colourful use of language that permeates many aspects of Australian life. But like many Australians—most Australians, I would say—I do not agree with the gratuitous use of obscene language in our society, particularly in the public discourse or the broadcasts through our public media.
Just what is obscene language, of course, may be up for some debate, and I will not debate the wider issue now. But, if we draw ourselves back to 1912, when George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion entered the stage it caused an outrage by using the term ‘not bloody likely’. Now I use that term in this place with full respect for this place because it no longer causes a great deal of offence. In fact, a similar phrase was used in an advertising campaign promoting Australian tourism. It did not cause offence so much, but it did spark a great deal of debate across the world.
You can imagine my surprise when, reviewing the contribution of bad language to Australian television history, I noticed that what outraged audiences when Graham Kennedy made his infamous crow call, and what saw British television ban the band the Sex Pistols in 1976 for using the c-word, is now readily available and quite apparent on the 9.30 timeslot in shows such as Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. I quite like Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. I know there is a warning immediately before it that we are going to be exposed to some bad language. But there is a level at which we have to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ That level was reached, I believe, when Mr Ramsay used the c-word—as I will politely describe it—a couple of times in an episode broadcast at 9.30 at night. Mr Ramsay is very popular, of course. The following week he was in the 8.30 timeslot, in an episode which featured the use of the f-word 80 times, apparently, in a 40-minute time period. To me that is a bit outrageous. I think it is unnecessary. I do not think it supports the tone or the content of the program itself. But, more importantly, I think it undermines a great deal of the integrity associated with the Australian broadcasting networks.
The Australian broadcasting networks have a code of conduct. The code of conduct is quite straightforward: it is about broadcasting material that is relevant to the program and that is not likely to cause serious offence. There are warnings regarding frequent very coarse language—language that is aggressive or can be interpreted in an aggressive manner. We have seen this sort of language used not only in Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares but in Sex and the City, The Sopranos and Big Brother Uncut. All of them have aroused some comment in the public domain.
But my comment is related to the actual process of complaining about such use of language where one thinks it is gratuitous or unnecessary and actually damages what I think is the social structure of Australian life. As I said at the start, I am not a wowser. I accept that bad language is going to be used. I understand that people—individuals and parents—have a responsibility to determine their own viewing habits by turning programs they find offensive off. But there are circumstances where, as I said, we have to say, ‘Enough is enough.’
The process, I have discovered, is that when you think language is inappropriate for broadcasting in a particular timeslot there are a number of avenues, but basically you have to write initially to the television station to complain within 30 days of it being broadcast. The television station is required to give you a response within 60 days. If you are not satisfied with the response given by the television station, you can then approach ACMA. ACMA is the body that is responsible for the standards on television outside the self-policing done by the television stations themselves. After one has written to ACMA, within 60 days, if the complaint is determined to be one that ACMA will handle then they will consider the information provided and offer the offending station the opportunity to reply. Comments from stations in this opportunity to reply can take up to three months, and in some cases a bit longer. Once ACMA has all of the information, the complaint is assessed against the code of conduct. It is not uncommon, I am advised, not to receive any advice or a report from ACMA until five or six months after the complaint has been initially lodged—and this does not include the time from the original broadcast.
I believe this dissuades a lot of people from making complaints or identifying areas of our public broadcasting system where they have particular problems. I also believe that there is an opportunity for us in government to review the process to give ordinary Australians more of a say and more of an impact on what is acceptable for viewing on our public broadcasting system. Imagine for a moment—it is now 10 o’clock in the Senate and there are possibly two or three people listening to this broadcast outside of this house—
Interjection Senator Mason—There are thousands!
Continue Senator BERNARDI—There may well be thousands, but I suspect it is somewhat less than that. Imagine if I littered this speech with a bunch of profanities. In 10 minutes, if I wanted to adhere to Mr Ramsay’s record, I guess I could get 20 or so Fs in and maybe a couple of Cs. Imagine the outrage that would be heard around Australia if a member of our parliamentary team used that language in a chamber like this. It would be appalling. It would be outrageous. Why should we expect anything less from our public broadcasters? I use the term ‘public’ in the sense that they are free-to-air broadcasters. They have carriage across a great percentage of our population. We need to determine whether they are going to be a licence unto themselves in what they broadcast.
I understand perfectly that there are live feeds that may result in inopportune or unfortunate language or comments being broadcast but there is no excuse for gratuitous bad language to be broadcast repeatedly if it has no real bearing on the material being shown, in a relatively early time slot, and when it can clearly be beeped out or censored. I say this not because I believe in censorship but because I believe strongly that what we broadcast on our televisions has a profound impact on how we conduct ourselves, over the course of time.
I go back to the examples of the Sex Pistols, who were banned from British TV and Graham Kennedy who was banned from television, for much lesser offences 30-odd years ago. What is the next step? If we accept that the c-word is perhaps the most offensive within the English language, and that it is now okay to broadcast it after 9.30 at night, the next step is to be able to broadcast it more frequently, and at earlier and earlier time slots. This is what concerns me. We have seen the incremental creep of bad language into our society. We have seen a change in what is acceptable in our discourse with our colleagues and sometimes with our families and our friends. I take the stand that this is unacceptable in the public domain and I believe that we should streamline the process so that ACMA has a more efficient means of dealing with complaints to ensure that the broadcast standards are maintained.
******
Quote from:
Carve-up in political kitchen.
SMH
26.04.08
Senator Bernardi was keen to explain his role in setting up a Senate inquiry into one of the most popular shows on television. "I've stood in the face of oncoming traffic before," he said. "I think you've got to stand for what you believe is right."
Bernardi's is such a South Australian story. The family fortune began with a migrant father's wine bar in Norwood. The son was a champion rower, went into pubs for a while but diversified into stockbroking and venture capital; and all the time he was clawing his way towards a Liberal seat. It took him a decade, but in early 2006 he inherited a fabulous political prize: the Senate seat of Robert Hill.
Bernardi's win was a significant blow to moderate forces within the party. Neither Hill nor John Howard had wanted it to turn out that way. Even by the standards of the party, this man was considered rather to the right. In his maiden speech at the age of 36 Bernardi promised to "be guided by my conscience, my family, my country and my God."
He drew little attention. The press mentioned him here and there over the next couple of years for opposing stem cell research, dissenting on global warming, welcoming a nuclear plant for South Australia, displaying remarkable tenacity in faction fights - he won top spot on the Coalition Senate ticket last year - and begging the Liberal Party not to respond to defeat by moving to the centre. He told the Herald this week: "I'd never leave anyone wondering what I stand for."
Bernardi's breakthrough began when "a young person" wrote to him complaining about hearing "the c-word" on Gordon Ramsay's cooking show on March 6. Bernardi passed the complaint to WIN Adelaide, Nine's local affiliate station.
What happened next was also very South Australian. Ramsay's exasperated reference to a lazy French chef at about 10.15pm in that episode - Kitchen Nightmares USA: Secret Garden - had been cleared by Nine in Sydney for viewing by mature audiences with a warning about language. But down in Adelaide, WIN was appalled by Bernardi's revelation.
"We do not accept the broadcast of the c-word at all," responded Shirley Brown, the manager of regulatory and network affairs. That dissent within the Nine Network gave Bernardi the evidence he needed to argue the broadcasting codes of practice are so vague and lax the industry can't understand let alone enforce them. Brown's reply convinced Bernardi: "We do have a problem."
But Bernardi decided the time had come. Backed by the far Right Christian lobby group the Australian Family Association, he signalled he was about to call for a Senate inquiry into the "grossly offensive" language Ramsay was using on television. "Is this the sort of language we want our kids to be using in public discourse?" he asked. "In my view, the answer is no."
Censorship campaigners are always at pains to point out their own morals aren't at risk. They're men and women of the world. Never wowsers. "I watch Gordon Ramsay. I like it," says Bernardi. "I've used this sort of language myself." Even the c-word, I asked? "It's hard to believe, isn't it? Yes, of course I've said it."
He fears the impact Ramsay's language will have on children. "Every now and again my kids wander down to go to the bathroom or get a drink or something and they hear it, and I turn it off. I don't want them to be exposed to it at 8 and 6. I'd rather they didn't."
He's far less concerned about nudity on television. "I haven't found it as confronting." He explains: "The reason for this is that you can't hear nudity."
Bernardi wants no c-words on television, ever; no f-words before 9pm; no forward creep of foul language into news and current affairs shows; more beeping on the sound track; an extended definition of coarse language annexed to the industry codes plus a schedule showing with absolute clarity which words will be used at what times, and much swifter resolution of viewer complaints.
The senator is impressed neither by the size of Ramsay's audience nor by the thought that other parents might be left to decide, as he does, what they want to watch on the box. He finds no comfort in once-hated words like "bloody" becoming so accepted they turn up in government advertising. For Bernardi it's evidence that desensitisation through repetition leads to a collapse of standards.
"Bloody was at the very early part of the swearing spectrum. The f- and the c-words are right at the other end of the spectrum. As it builds acceptance on our broadcasters, I can only see that it's going to become more frequent and drift into earlier timeslots as it has over the last 10 or 20 years." He wonders what happens once "we're using the c-word and the f-word all the time. Are we going to invent a new word?"
So did the networks faced with yet another Senate inquiry. Bernardi wrote to them "seeking their view on the use specifically of the c-word" which they interpreted as a hamfisted attempt to divide and conquer. The networks are, so far at least, standing shoulder to shoulder and will respond to the inquiry through the industry group Free TV Australia.
Bernardi has earned little but mockery from the press for his efforts. He's unperturbed. "You lose some skin in the game but you've got to be in the game to make a difference." Labor has so far escaped unscathed. And Gordon Ramsay is rating through the roof with telephone complaints down to five or six a week.
Bruce Billson
Vic Federal
Member of the House of Representatives
Australian Liberal Party
Electorate: Dunkley
Gordon Ramsay's bad language in KITCHEN NIGHTMARES was the subject of a speech by Bruce Billson in March 2008.
ADJOURNMENT: Free-to-Air Television
Date 18 March, 2008
Database House Hansard
Speaker Billson, Bruce, MP (Dunkley, LP, Opposition)
Interjector SPEAKER, The
Page 63
Proof Yes
Source House
Type Speech
Context Adjournment
Main Committee No
ADJOURNMENT Free-to-Air Television
Speech Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (8.58 p.m.)—I rise to convey some concerns that my friends and parliamentary colleagues the member for Cowan, Luke Simpkins, and South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi have raised with me. In essence, their concerns relate to representations they have received about the proper classification of some of the content on our free-to-air television networks. Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares is one example, where very strident and frequent coarse language has raised concerns. Also, the Channel 9 series Underbelly has received some attention about of its content. I think what is fairly categorised as adult drama may often not be properly reflected in the classification and therefore the timing of that show going to air on television. Interestingly, Channel 9 has properly recognised that in some episodes there is frequent very coarse language. That is an advice that is provided to the viewer, but that insight is not reflected in the actual classification given to the show. If we are to continue to have a self-regulatory system, we need confidence in the way these judgements are made. I encourage the networks involved to carefully look at the issues that have been raised with them and to respond appropriately.
Interjection The SPEAKER—Order! It being 9.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
Anna Burke
Vic Federal
Member of the House of Representatives
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Chisholm
Called for anorexia websites to be banned in Australia.
ANNA BURKE
Media Statement
13th December 2006
Need For Action Against Pro-anorexia Websites
A new study reinforces the need for the Howard Government to take urgent action against pro-eating disorder websites, Federal Member for Chisholm Anna Burke said today.
According to the study – Surfing for Thinness - over a third of adolescent eating disorder patients access pro-eating disorder websites. Of these, 96 per cent learn new ways to purge and lose weight while viewing the websites.
“Pro-eating disorder websites are extremely dangerous and anyone suffering from anorexia or bulimia should be protected from viewing them,” Ms Burke said.
Despite repeated requests from Ms Burke, the Howard Government has refused to take any action against pro-eating disorder websites.
“It may be difficult to ban pro-anorexia websites, but they should at least be classified RC (Refused Classification) or X18+ to ensure they are blocked on computers with filters, or under Labor's 'clean feed' policy,” Ms Burke said.
In response to a letter from Ms Burke, the Classification Board stated that the impact of these sites was ‘no greater than moderate’, despite views to the contrary from health professionals.
Ms Burke then asked the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to review the Classification Guidelines. However Mr Ruddock said that it was not the responsibility of the Government to protect adolescents from pro-eating disorder websites, and that the Classification Scheme “does not prevent the exploration of strong themes or the expression of controversial views”.
“Pro-anorexia websites are not just controversial, they are downright dangerous as they encourage self-harm. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness, yet the Howard Government is treating these websites as though they’re nothing more than a silly teenage hobby,” Ms Burke said.
Quote from:
TV Interview 14.12.06 Ten News
Presenter: A disturbing number of pro-anorexia websites are popping up on the
internet - sites aimed at helping young girls develop and master an eating
disorder. A new study reveals more than a third of adolescents with an eating
disorder access these sites. MP Anna Burke wants the sites banned and she joins
me now. Good morning Anna. This is really concerning research.
Anna Burke: These sites are extremely dangerous and we have underestimated them. There’s a growth in these sites. They are encouraging people to starve themselves and how to hide it from their parents. They’re glamorising starving yourself to death. They provide images of so-called ‘thinspirational’ individuals: emaciated models and people who look as though they are close to death’s door. We need to do something about them.
Presenter: So Anna, do we know who is behind these sights?
Anna Burke: A lot of these sites are put up by people who are suffering from an eating disorder, anorexia or bulimia, but there is growing evidence that there may also be some paedophilia activity behind these sites.
Presenter: So we can’t ban them - you’ve contacted the Classification Board. What response did you get?
Anna Burke: I was very disappointed in the response both from the Classification Board and from the Howard Government. Both have advised me that they don't see these sites as being dangerous and that they do not need to be banned. I disagree. I think we should place classifications on them - X18+ - which would block them out if you have a filter on your computer, and ensure that vulnerable adolescents cannot access this dangerous information.
Presenter: Do you think parents are aware of this type information on the internet?
Anna Burke: One of the disturbing things about the report that was in Pediatrics, a leading medical journal in the US, was that most parents didn't even know these sites existed. You can control your children at home but you don’t know what they’re doing on other people’s websites, at school, in the library. If we put a block on these websites we would know that vulnerable adolescents could not access this information. Parents can’t always be watching their children.
Reporter: Do you think though if there are restrictions placed on these types of websites, that teenagers will access this type of information anyway. They’re very vulnerable at that stage in their lives.
Anna Burke: They’re incredibly vulnerable. These sites are out there and they’re very disturbing, but we as legislators need to ensure we're making as many protections for these vulnerable individuals as we can. There have been cases cited of children as young as five being diagnosed with anorexia. This disease is on the increase. One in 20 women says they have suffered from an eating disorder. There is a growing alarm at the increase in the disease amongst school-age children. We need to be doing much more about it.
Reporter: Although we know the high incidents of these eating disorders around the country, they do have very serious health consequences as well if left untreated.
Anna Burke: People don’t realise that the largest cause of death from psychiatric illnesses is actually from eating disorders. We don't talk about it a lot, but we need to be discussing it more and ban these websites which tell you how to starve yourself, how to hide it, how to get more information about it. Instead of a glamorising it, we need to be stopping them as one measure to fight the horrendous growth in this disease.
Reporter: As you mentioned earlier you’re facing a number of brick walls in actually getting people to take responsibility for banning or restricting these websites. What’s your next step?
Anna Burke: My next step is to continue to raise awareness with the community about these pro-anorexia websites that out there. If you have an adolescent child you may not know that [pro-eating disorder websites] exist.
Quoted from:
Labor to ban websites promoting eating disorders
Daily Telegraph 02.09.07
In letters to Ms Burke, the Australian Communications Media Authority informed her that, in the authority's view, the impact of the so-called "pro-ana'' sites was regarded as "no greater than moderate''.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock also advised Ms Burke that: "Ultimately it remains the responsibility of parents or guardians to make decisions about appropriate entertainment material for their children''.
This was despite Ms Burke pointing out that the "pro-ana'' sites - regarded by some as suicide sites - promote anorexia regimes for pregnant women and give teenage girls tips on how to disguise their bulimic vomiting from their parents.
Ms Roxon said: "Any responsible government would be looking at shutting down these sites and the ALP will look at all options''.
Ms Burke says one option would be to establish formal links with anti-anorexia lobby groups in the US.
Quoted from:
Call to ban anorexia websites 17.04.08 SMH
Anna Burke said she had been calling for ban on
anorexia websites for some time. "It's something we really need to
explore," Ms Burke said. "This is dangerous information on the
internet."