Page 676 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These classifications make it more obvious to parents what the content is all about. I reiterate what the Chief Minister said in his presentation speech about R-rating—that this will become R 18+. It is an advisory, saying that you have to be over 18. We thought that that was what R meant anyway. Where it has its greatest significance, of course, is where you have the G, the PG and the M ratings, not to mention the restricted category X. Those will have MA 15+ and those sorts of appellations. Of course, people can then say, “If my child is going to be exposed to this, I agree with it,” or, “I disagree with it.” I think it is a much more comprehensive explanation of what is going on.
I also think advisory classifications are important. These are not restricted to anyone, regardless of age; they are advisory. These are not things that are imposed. The classifications are recommendations only, and parents can be encouraged to advise their kids that these movies, computer games and publications are suitable for their particular ages. They also help adults to make informed decisions or choices prior to viewing a film or purchasing a publication. If you go down to the video store you may find a leftover there. Sometimes it is not as easy as you might think.
If you go to some of the games stores and video sales stores, you might not want to look at a thing before working out for yourself whether it is suitable for your children. These advisories assist parents in doing that. Australian legislation recognises that some movies, games and publications require a mature perspective. This is what the Chief Minister was talking about before.
The protection of kids from exposure to unsuitable and explicit content is really one of the major points about the Australian classification system. Of course, this material is classified in legally restricted categories. That is a message from society to parents and people picking up items for showing to young people that society, as a whole, rejects the exposure of young people to this sort of explicit material, and so makes it illegal. I support that very strongly. There is, of course, a civil libertarian argument about whether or not people can have a choice and whether or not parents should have a choice about allowing their children to have exposure to stuff. I reject that out of hand, when talking about explicit material with respect to kids. I think we need to send a loud and clear message about that. This legislation supports that as well.
The changes follow on from the creation of a single set of classification guidelines for both films and computer games in 2003. Members will recall that when the Chief Minister presented the legislation the highest permissible classification for computer games remained at MA 15+. Anybody who has seen the violence in some of the computer games surely cannot have any difficulty with a minimum of MA 15+.
I have been absolutely appalled about some of the material in computer games. We try to teach our kids not to be violent. There is a movement about, saying, “Don’t give your kids toy guns for Christmas.” By the way, we then enrol them in a paintball bloody fight. So I have to say there is a bit of inconsistency there. The emergence of computer games has revealed some pretty ugly games, some based on Iraq, some based on Afghanistan, some based on the sorts of horrors Martin Bryant engaged in. Some of the American stuff, for example, that I observed when I was in New York is absolutely mind-boggling. They ask participants to conduct that horror scene all over again. I think this legislation goes some way to stopping that happening in this country.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .