Graham Edwards
WA Federal
Member of the House of Representatives
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Cowan
Spoke in favour of greater TV Regulation during the controversy over the 2005 version of BIG BROTHER.
Quoted from:
Hands off our code. The Age 18.08.05
Labor MP Graham Edwards agreed there was a need
for greater regulation. "I think some of the stuff that's being
presented to the people of Australia on TV is absolute crap," he
said.
Andrew Evans
SA State
Member of the Legislative Council
Family First Party
Not a particularly surprising set of questions from a member of the Religious Right.
***
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 23 November 2004
FILM CLASSIFICATION
The Hon. A.L. EVANS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industry and Trade, representing the Attorney General, a question about the restrictions on appeals for films awarded unrestricted classifications.
Leave granted.
The Hon. A.L. EVANS: Under the review process for classification decisions made by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, film and publication distributors have access to a system of review and a right to appeal. Almost invariably, distributors apply to have the classification lowered. No such right applies for the public. If they believe that a classification is too lenient and should be raised, their options are very limited. They must prove that they are `persons aggrieved' by the classification decision in order to be heard. If they cannot meet this requirement, their only option is to persuade the state Attorney General to lodge a request for a review with the federal Attorney General.
Changes to the Classification Act have expanded the class of persons who can be considered to be aggrieved, but only in regard to appeals concerning decisions relating to `restricted publications' such as MA, R, X and RC films and computer games. These changes now allow organisations whose objects or purposes include, and whose activities relate to, the contentious aspects of the theme or subject matter to qualify. Further, a person who has engaged in a series of activities relating to or who has researched the contentious aspects can also be considered aggrieved. Organisations or members of the public concerned about material being given a rating of G rather than a PG, or a PG rather than an M, do not benefit from these changes.
In the Office of Film and Literature Classification Annual Report 2003-04, it was noted that each year there has been some dissatisfaction with the classification given to some family films. Young Media Australia is an organisation that provides detailed reviews and advice to the public about the media and the developmental needs of children. Its work is highly valued by both professionals and parents who are concerned about protecting children from the material in the media that is not appropriate or can be harmful to their developmental needs. Young Media Australia would have challenged the classification given to films such as Scooby Doo, but the combined requirements of a time limit of 30 days, the cost and having to prove that they were within the definition of persons aggrieved by the decision prevented such action. My questions to the Attorney-General are as follows:
1. Why was it seen to be more important that the definitions of who can be aggrieved were relaxed in relation to legally restricted films, but not for films for wide consumption by hundreds of thousands of children?
2. Will the Attorney-General pursue a review of this anomaly that prevents the public and interested organisations, other than distributors, appealing films and other material in the unrestricted categories in the same way as can now be done in regard to material given a restricted classification?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Industry and Trade): I thank the honourable member for his question and I will refer it to the Attorney-General and bring back a reply.
***
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 8 December 2004
YOUNG MEDIA AUSTRALIA
The Hon. A.L. EVANS: Young Media Australia's mission is to promote a quality media environment for Australian children and to raise community awareness of children's needs in relation to the media. Children's normal developmental stages have quite specific and important implications for decision-making and information about children's media exposure. Young Media Australia undertakes to conduct, collect and review research and information relating to children and the media to maintain a significant level of expertise in child development and the impacts of media.
Another vital role of Young Media is in the provision of information to parents and caregivers via the Young Media Australia web site. Advice provided relates to a range of media issues including the impact of print, electronic and screen based media on children and young people. It undertakes to have a comprehensive range of movie reviews available and has recently begun to have some of these reviews published in a local weekend newspaper. Trained professionals provide advice and information via a 24 hour a day seven days a week national free call helpline on a range of topics. These professionals have reported consistently that they receive strong positive feedback from callers about the work of Young Media. Young Media Australia also advocates for the needs and interests of children in relation to the media. Young Media Australia represents community concerns about the impact of print, electronic and screen based media on children and young adults to legislators, regulators and the media.
Much of what is marketed through the media is not in the best interests of children. Media marketing is increasingly using sophisticated techniques which exploit children's natural developmental vulnerabilities and which have negative impacts on children's development. Messages encouraging early sexualisation or the acceptance of violence are used to raise demand from young children for various products. Parents are increasingly confused by the marketing of television and movies that are directed at children but also at parents. Movie distributors sometimes seek to maximise their box office takings without regard to whether the movie is beneficial or problematic for children at various developmental stages.
Many M-rated films have been marketed to the young via toys and fun activity books designed for four and five year olds. Some parents may be swept along by marketing pressure to conclude that the association of toys with the movie means that the movie is appropriate for these young children. Our classification system is not properly reflecting the research about media impacts, nor is it as useful as it could be in terms of being structured around children's major stages of development and parents' desire to make good parenting decisions. Young Media Australia has been at the forefront of education about how parents can best use the classification system. It is the only group trying to support parents to moderate their children's media experiences so that children's development is supported.
Who is supporting Young Media Australia? The South Australian government has been providing funding assistance for a number of years. However, it is a national organisation meeting the needs of concerned and responsible parents across Australia. It is performing a vital role in meeting the needs of families and children. These needs are not being adequately addressed by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the national classification system. I understand that Young Media Australia is still waiting to hear whether commonwealth funding has been approved through the Stronger Families: Invest to Grow grants. Federal funding should constitute a substantial part of Young Media Australia's funding base, and do so on an ongoing basis.
Time expired.
***
South Australian LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL
Tuesday 3 May 2005
FILM CLASSIFICATION
The Hon. A.L. EVANS: I would like to ask a real question, as you requested, Mr President. I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industry and Trade, representing the Attorney-General, a question about film classification.
Leave granted.
The Hon. A.L. EVANS: Recently the film Birth opened in Adelaide cinemas. The movie is rated MA15+. The movie, Birth, stars Nicole Kidman playing the role of a woman who becomes convinced that a 10-year-old boy is the reincarnation of her dead husband. The movie includes a scene showing the naked actress in a bath with a 10-year-old boy who has an erotic obsession with her, and who has previously discussed having sex with her. Channel 9’s film reviewer, Kerry Bashford, said:
A young boy seeks out a man’s ex-wife and begins to have something of a romance with her. This is what has everyone talking, not to mention the nude scene in which Nicole Kidman shares a bath with the young boy who makes no secret of his admiration of her naked form.
In the light of growing reports of paedophilia in the community, including the case last year of a Melbourne school teacher who had a sexual relationship with a 15-yearold student, and a former Adelaide teacher who had unlawful sexual intercourse with two of his 17-year-old students, my questions to the Attorney-General are:
1. Is he aware that the Commonwealth Film Classification guidelines state that ‘Depictions of child sexual abuse or exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or looks like a child under 16 will be refused classification’?
2. Is he aware that the MA15+ classification allows children of any age to see a film in this category as long as they are accompanied by their parent or adult guardian?
3. Is he aware that adult paedophiles might use Birth to groom children to consider child—adult sex as thinkable? 4. Will he refer Birth to the South Australian Classification Council for review of its apparent inappropriate MA15+ classification? If not, why not?