Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to move this motion, because the increasing sexualisation of our children is a trend that concerns me greatly, as it does you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke. I have raised this issue publicly before, both in national debates and in this House, and I have received extensive support from people in the Australian community who share my deep concern about this important issue. One mother from Brisbane, Bridgette, was among many parents and teachers who contacted me to express their support for action on this matter. In expressing her concern about driving past inappropriate billboard advertising with her children in the car, Bridgette said, 'I feel powerless to control these kinds of images.' It was a common theme in the correspondence I received on this matter. While many parents want to be the ones who control their children's exposure to adult content, they feel it is almost impossible to do so. While I understand that this is a complex and difficult issue to address, I believe it is high time that we as a society start to take stock of these significant concerns and work together as a group to ensure that our children can grow and develop in a positive and healthy way.

The motion before us today acknowledges the findings of the Letting children be children: the report of an independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood commissioned by the government of the United Kingdom and released in June last year. This review draws on evidence collected from the survey of a sample group of 1,198 parents as part of a wider evidence-gathering process. It revealed significant public concern about the sexualisation of young girls and boys through the media and the commercial world.

The American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls defines the process of sexualisation as one where a person's value comes only from his or her sexual appeal to the exclusion of all other characteristics; a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy; a person is sexually objectified or sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person. The Letting children be children review found that children are growing up against the backdrop of a culture that is increasingly commercialised and sexualised.

The evidence pointed to widespread public concern in the United Kingdom about children's almost constant exposure to sexualised imagery through billboards, magazines, pre-watershed television programs containing adult themes, music videos depicting sexually explicit dance routines or provocative lyrics, and adult material available on demand through the internet and through the commercial world in the form of advertising and marketing. Images of this kind convey to children a clear message that suggests that women and girls are nothing more than sexual objects.

The report found that many parents felt that these images were becoming increasingly sexualised and gendered and they expressed concern about the influence from exposure to these images on the development and attitudes of their children. As this motion states, the review also found that parents are very concerned about the clothing, services and products being specifically marketed to children, which often reinforce gender stereotypes and portray children as being more sexually mature than their age would suggest. Parents were particularly concerned about the sexualisation of clothes designed for young girls, listing items like padded bras, bikini swimwear, clothing made from fabrics like animal prints and black lace, high-heeled shoes and clothing incorporating suggestive slogans.

Lastly, the review noted that parents often feel their concerns are not taken into account and that little effort is made to assist parents to control what their children are exposed to, despite the fact that they feel they are in the best position to say what is or is not appropriate for their child. As I stated earlier, many parents want to take charge and limit their children's exposure to what they see as adult content but feel powerless to do so.

As stated in the motion, I believe, along with many Australian parents, that the sexualisation of children is a growing issue not just in the United Kingdom but also here, in Australia. A number of reports into this issue conducted by both the Australia Institute and the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications and the Arts found a high level of public concern about the premature advancement of the sexuality of children caused by their frequent exposure to highly sexualised images of adults as well as pressure to consume products designed to directly sexualise them.

The motion recognises that the sexualisation of children and, in particular, of girls has been associated with a wide range of negative consequences, including body image issues, eating disorders, low self-esteem and mental illness. We all know that viewing images that depict an unrealistic standard of beauty can make us all feel bad. I often feel bad when I open up a magazine and see unrealistic images of women. However, the important point is this: unlike adults, children have not yet developed the cognitive ability to objectively analyse these kinds of images, and so they are particularly vulnerable to this kind of content. While adults are able to determine whether something has been airbrushed or is unrealistic or a person has had their body altered, children are unable to do this.

The report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls presents a summary of the significant body of evidence linking exposure to highly sexualised content with a process of self-objectification, whereby young girls internalise the sexualising images of the culture in which they are developing and start to criticise their own physical selves for failing to conform—which is often impossible—with what is a narrow concept of attractiveness. The report notes that constant attention to one's physical appearance caused by self-objectification can often have a disruptive effect on performance in a range of areas, including schooling, because less time and energy is available for these other tasks. I saw some reports that showed that young girls were unable to attend to their school work because they were obsessing about their bodies.

The report highlights studies showing that young girls exposed to sexualised and gender stereotyped content in magazines and through television can experience low self-esteem and become extremely dissatisfied with and anxious about their bodies. These feelings of inadequacy can then lead to serious health concerns, such as disordered eating.

In addition, research shows that the sexualisation and objectification of girls in society can have significant adverse effects on the attitudes that boys have and on the ways that they perceive and interact with females throughout their lives. Not only can this lead to men struggling to maintain intimate relationships because they have unrealistic expectations of women but it can also teach young boys negative messages about how it is appropriate to treat and interact with girls. Worst of all, it can cause young boys treat women purely as sexual objects. There is little doubt that the frequent exposure of young children to sexualised content leads to a whole range of negative consequences.

The motion before us today urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of this report. But it is also time for action. I believe that as a community, we in Australia, including industry and government, need to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood in Australia. We are living in an increasingly sexualised and commercial world. While adults have developed the skills to navigate this—not always successfully, but a lot of the time we are able to navigate, analyse and critically evaluate this material—children can be extremely vulnerable to these influences. As a result, these influences can affect how they develop and determine what kinds of adults they grow up to be.

I do not think that it is any one group's responsibility, and that has been the trouble—one group of people has not been responsible, because it is complex issue. But I believe that we need to raise awareness of this issue. We need to work together. Industry, government, parents and the community need to work together to ensure that as a society we deal effectively with this important issue so that future generations of Australian boys and girls can grow and develop in an environment that promotes positive and healthy messages. Unfortunately, I feel that we are going the other way.

I strongly believe that we need to prevent the increased sexualisation and commercialisation of our children. That is why I am moving this important motion. I notice that there are quite a few speakers on the list. I hope for their support on this motion. I commend the motion to the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the motion by the member for Kingston on the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, which regrettably is on the increase in Australian society. As a mother, I understand the difficulties that parents face as their children mature and they adjust to both the biological changes and the external pressures that they face to grow up a particular way. I am very committed to working with the community on this issue and to discovering how we can best approach it in the parliamentary context and I thank the member for her motion today. Speaking to the first part of the motion, I acknowledge the findings of the very extensive review in the United Kingdom led by Mr Reg Bailey, entitled Letting children being children. The review involved more than 1,000 parents, who participated in qualitative research, including surveys, interviews and focus groups. It received more than 120 submissions from various organisational and business stakeholders and serves as an important reassessment of an issue that not only affects the UK but should also concern parents throughout Australia. It is a very worrying issue for parents, who want the best for their children and will do everything that they can to ensure that they grow up in a healthy and happy environment.

Sadly, the increasing prevalence of sexualised images and products can be noticed every day when simply walking around clothes shops, with sexualised underwear and swimwear aimed at young girls. One need only open a girls magazine to see 'keep slim' tips and dating advice for 10-year-old girls. We know that the risks of this increasing commercialisation include but are not limited to mental health effects, body image issues, eating disorders and low self-esteem, as this motion suggests. For example, according to the Eating Disorders Foundation of Victoria, anorexia nervosa is the third most common chronic illness for adolescent girls after obesity and asthma, and the incidence of this disease has increased over the last two decades. These consequences for the future generations of Australia are of grave concern.

As the review notes, there are two approaches that can be taken when considering the pressures for children to grow up too quickly. The first is restricting the knowledge available to our children so that they are able to remain completely innocent and naive until they become adults. But as parents we must deal with the world as we find it. The second approach is to have a more open dialogue to provide the necessary tools to children so that they can understand what is happening in the world around them as they mature. It is reasonable to suggest that the latter, balanced approach is the better option.

While we want our children to stay innocent by exposing them as little as possible to age-inappropriate issues, we must accept the reality that the increasing instances of commercialisation and sexualisation in the community are affecting the development of children. We have to accept that it is an issue for which we must devise appropriate solutions and which requires constant dialogue in the community. As point (2) of today's motion notes, the thrust of the recommendations in the review is directed at industry and regulators, with government monitoring progress and legislating to protect children if necessary. One particular comment in the response of the education minister to the UK review stuck out for me. Ms Sarah Teather said that it is not enough for businesses to simply comply with the relevant regulatory systems which were established to protect children. Parents expect them to do their best for children, not simply stick to the rules.

As such, as we have seen in the obesity debate, the question is whether it is incumbent upon the government to step in and impose more regulation such as advertising standards on businesses when they are directly advertising to children. This is an important question because, while it would be impossible for a government to stop sexualisation of children completely, we must canvass the options that an Australian government can take to address this issue.

In Australia, the parliament in recent years has undertaken two inquiries: one on billboard and other outdoor advertising in the House of Representatives in 2011 and more specifically one on the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media in the Senate in 2008. The 2008 inquiry report mirrored the UK review's concern about the inappropriate sexualisation and noted that there is an onus on broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, retailers and manufacturers to respond to growing community concerns. The report also made 13 recommendations to the government.

But what was the Labor government's response? The report was published in June 2008. The government did not bother to respond until more than a year later, in July 2009. When they finally decided to read this report on an issue that is very important to the future of Australian families, what action did they take? Essentially, they did nothing. They admitted that there is a problem. They noted the recommendations. In the 2½ years since then, this government has done nothing to address this growing problem.

In Australia, we have systems in place through which these concerns can be raised. For example, the Advertising Standards Board covers complaints regarding both television and billboard advertisements and specific complaints about inappropriately targeted merchandise. More generally, the Kids Free 2B Kids websiteis a very useful resource for parents to help reverse the trend of sexualisation. Without a doubt, this issue is very complicated and solutions to the problem are not always easily identifiable. As such, I would welcome proposals as to how we can best adapt our regulatory system in the future.

One of the ongoing manifestations of the sexualisation of children about which parents in Ryan have spoken to me is a new phenomenon known as sexting, which involves the transmission or publication of sexualised words, images or video via phones, email, the internet or other media. They are also concerned about how this relates to the monitoring of their children's internet use, an area where the rules are constantly changing because there are always new virtual interactions and other social media becoming available.

I want to pay tribute to Mr Brett Lee, an internet safety expert at INESS, Internet Education and Safety Services. Mr Lee, who worked for more than 20 years as a detective for the Queensland police in the field of child exploitation, now gives internet safety and cyberbullying presentations to schools, the community and organisations. I would like to place on record my appreciation for his invaluable contribution to our families and the particular advice he has given to church groups, schools and my electorate generally about how to develop tools for families. One parent told me that, in trying to understand or deal with the sexualisation of their children or monitor their online activity, they are sometimes tempted to put it in the too-hard basket. It is the difficulty in understanding what is going on or where to start that makes them feel helpless. It is easier to just take away their mobile phone or ban the use of computers, even though the parents acknowledge that these are essentially compulsory resources for children today. Fortunately, through the resources of organisations like INESS, parents have been helped to unravel the online world, including at Pullenvale State School, Nudgee Junior College and St Peter's Lutheran College.

As an expert in the field, Mr Lee has remarked that the most important approach we can take is an individual and community based approach and that education for parents and students is the key. From a technical point of view, given the unimaginable scale of the internet or so-called cyber network, it would be impossible to devise a top-down approach that could be applicable to the varying circumstances that families encounter. It is at the home and school level that the community can come together to devise appropriate solutions. Mr Lee encourages parents and their children to have an open dialogue about not only their interaction with other students but also what they see on television and the internet.

Ensuring parents have enough support to help their children is certainly something that the coalition has always made a priority. The Howard government provided free computer based content filters for parents and, at the 2010 election, committed to spending an extra $60 million to develop such technology. It is with this approach that the federal government and indeed the education departments in each state have an opportunity to ensure that adequate resources are provided. Ultimately the family is the fundamental base to work through this issue. While governments can provide assistance, they also need to respect the mixture of solutions present within the community.

What is required on this issue is a truly consultative approach between parents, schools, the community, industry and government. I believe government should consider how this interaction might be facilitated in the school context with a view to assisting parents and children to find their way through what is a challenging, difficult and potentially dangerous area. Never before has so much unregulated material been so easily available to our children—material that promotes sexualisation at a young age and, at worst, material that can lead them into real and serious danger. I would certainly welcome ongoing monitoring of progress in this regard and legislating to protect children, if necessary, in the Australian context.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really pleased to stand in the chamber this evening to support the motion by my colleague the member for Kingston. One of the things I have seen since I commenced my teaching career 25 years ago, and certainly as a mother of two young girls who are now aged 20 and 18, is a real shift in the way young girls are portrayed in the media and a shift in the way they are encouraged to represent themselves in public. I think we can see, even from school uniforms at a very early age, a clear contrast between the sexualisation that is happening for girls and for boys. Girls uniforms are getting shorter and shorter and shorter. A simple code might be that the girls' uniforms must be at least as long as the boys' shorts. We might have an attempt at a bit of equity there in terms of a little more discreet exposure.

These sorts of pressures that girls are under in all sorts of contexts, including in the school context in how they wear their uniforms, is being informed by those very powerful visual images of what we see on the newsstands as we walk by, what is increasingly coming before us through the media and in particular the images that flash across websites. I would like to talk a little bit about the phenomenon of Facebook and the cybercommunities it creates. The reality is that, more and more, technology provides us with the opportunity to use cameras. I have to say that I was astounded, while on holidays with my young niece, by how many photographs she took of herself for Facebook and how quickly she attempted to upload them. She in fact used my own daughter's phone to take some photographs of herself. A bit of a contest arose out of that, because I think there was about a $3 fee each time to send a photo to her Facebook, which was different from the plan that she was on. So, consequently, the whole issue of taking photos of oneself—the kinds of images that you publish of yourself, where you might choose to publish them and the long-term implications—was something we discussed this very summer. Therein lies one of the recommendations that the member for Kingston has put forward here:

… urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of the Letting the Children be Childrenreport and to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood …

On that issue, I really do want to speak about the importance of the industry coming to some sort of understanding of their responsibility as important corporate and social citizens. Businesses do not exist outside and beyond the ethical practices; businesses sit within communities and they rely on communities to succeed. We need an ethical response to what we can see is an increase in eating disorders, an increase in challenges to a sense of body image, increases in students' and young people's sense of identity, at a particular time they are growing in their understanding of sexualisation. These are pressures that should not be brought to bear on young people unnecessarily. Some businesses are very much responsible for pushing the envelope way too far.

In terms of the community, I do recall that several years ago, when I was heading over a beautiful drive that we have on the Central Coast, the Ridgeway, which takes me from the seat of Robertson over into the seat of Dobell to the university, I was caught behind a bus and on the back of the bus was an image of a four-year-old girl in a very short dress, knee-high stockings and extreme amounts of make-up. This was something that really alarmed me. It was even more alarming when I contrasted the image of this young girl with the young boy who was her play partner in the picture. He looked very free, very comfortable, hardly made-up at all, in a regular pair of play shorts. When we are starting to project images such as that one on the back of buses, moving around our communities, we are really starting to have a massive impact on the kids who are sitting behind those images on the buses and on the whole community who see them. There is no way we can get away from these really enlarged public images. But when we see that as a community I think this report reminds us of the damaging impact.

Then we have to think about our responsibilities as active citizens, in terms of putting out our response to those people who are advertising. On that day I did feel a little empowered. I did take the opportunity to ring the advertiser and put to them my concern about the images that I saw before me. They contacted the provider of the service that created the ad and they were actually happy to take my feedback. Perhaps there is something to be learnt from that. I was certainly satisfied with their response, and I did not see any more ads of that nature for that company. There is perhaps a laxity in the community in terms of using our voices in ways that we can. It took only a couple of phone calls. I was actually able to raise my concerns and make my point, and I was heard quite tolerantly on the other end of the phone. If more of us look around and see this as a problem—particularly if the young, who are the most subjected to it, begin to sense that they have a voice and can ask for things to be different—then we have not only improved some outcomes in terms of the way they may be portrayed and sexualised but we also have a chance to communicate to them that, as a citizen, you have a right to speak to businesses, to speak to government and to be a voice in your own community for improving things for yourself, for your peers, for your family, for your friends and for your community in general. I think the Letting children be children report is another important document that adds weight to this whole field of research that has been undertaken in the last several years. The American Psychological Association and also Australian agencies, psychologists and people who write in that field have been writing about this issue for some time. We can no longer continue to just let these reports be written and have no response. We need a collective and informed response.

I also want to put on the record my recognition of some of the incredible heavy lifting that has been undertaken by Melinda Tankard Reist to bring this debate to the public. She has been writing on this issue for some years. In the last little while she has really increased the profile of the issue in the mainstream media. This is no longer an issue that is sitting around on the edges of conversation; it is coming right to the heart of our talk about images and the mental health aspects of what images construct, convey and destroy in our own community at this time. Congratulations to Melinda Tankard Reist for her work in that area. I have been quite horrified to see some of the vilification that has been levelled at her for daring to have views on this matter and others and for putting them forward in the public space.

In terms of who should take the greatest responsibility, I have argued here this evening that young people really need to have a voice in this. They are the ones who are affected and their voice should be prominent. But we should never forget that there is a moral responsibility for those who have power—adults, businesses and governments—to take the lead in making sure that the environment for young people is safe. We are very good at thinking about physical safety and we have managed through all sorts of legislation to increasingly make life safe for young people. I recall reading with horror a newspaper article from 1910 or so where a child had been killed under a tram. The commentary in the media was that this is something you have to expect; this is the way our community is. There would be horror and outrage now because we have figured out we can engage in conversations and think about how we legislate and operate to make the world a physically safer place for young people.

In terms of images and the incredible sexualisation that is going on for young people, particularly women, we have the opportunity right now to take responsibility as the adults in the room, as the ones with power and agency, to make sure that we continue to talk about it. But the time really has come for us to do more structurally about making sure we make a psychologically safe place for young women and men to grow up in.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion again in conjunction with other members. Although I am the only male speaking on this, my claim to association with this very fine motion comes from being the father of two daughters, aged 13 and nine, who has the same concerns that all other fathers in this place have. I take my responsibilities as a parent very seriously. When you are out there and you start looking at what is on the magazine racks, particular magazines targeted at young females, and you look at some of the clothes that are around and some of the images that you can see, whether they are in music videos or in a range of other mediums, you can see there are great causes for concern out there. I read through this report and looked at the recommendations and the other points that were so clearly made. It is very easy to understand that the same issues that face the United Kingdom most certainly face Australia.

Very recently I was at a function in my electorate and a dance troupe came to entertain the crowd. There were three young ladies participating in this event. The eldest was 19, the next sister was probably around 15 or 16 and the youngest would have been anywhere from 10 to about 12 years old. They were outstanding singers and dancers. However, there were times when I guess I was struggling to watch the choreography because I felt somewhat uncomfortable with it. Certainly the amount of lycra in most of the costumes and the make-up were of note but some of the moves—in many ways, sexual moves—that were part of this dance or choreography made me feel uncomfortable. And some of the other people I was there with also said that they were somewhat uncomfortable.

So it is most definitely the case that the sexualisation of children does not just come through the mediums that we are used to discussing—through the magazines and the music videos. It does not just come from that; there are expectations that pervade other parts of society as well. Again, as a father of a couple of daughters, I am greatly concerned about this. I heard recently about the seven-year-old daughter of some people I know. I have seen her wearing lipstick and make-up and she is even apparently wearing a padded bra at seven years old. Again, these are concerning developments in our society. Whilst retail outlets like Kmart and Big W might choose these sorts of products, and they might be useful for helping the older kids—girls around puberty—fit in, I think that it is still somewhat disturbing that these sorts of products are being sold and come in the sizes for those who are well and truly prepubescent. That is another cause of some concern.

I think it is particularly girls who are facing these sorts of marketing issues and the contact through various mediums—the internet et cetera. Girls are certainly facing those sorts of problems and expectations upon them to be more sexual than they really should be before ages such as 16. It is a disturbing thing. But, at the same time, we should not neglect talking about boys and the impact that the increasing marketing of sexual imagery has on boys as well. Internet pornography is a major problem, and I will talk about the internet soon. We know that children's minds are often fairly well hardwired at the outset. When they see imagery of pornography and hardcore pornography when they are young those images, unfortunately, are written hard onto their brains. That is not the sort of balanced view of the world that young children need or should have, and I think it can seriously affect the rest of their lives when they have that sort of exposure.

That really brings me to the matter of the internet. I was talking to friends recently specifically about the internet, and I guess there is a feeling in the community that there is a greater problem with paedophiles and people who are interested in children for entirely the wrong reasons. There is a great deal being thought about at the moment as if this is a bigger problem. I think that the ability of people to access the internet is not helping in these lines. I think with the internet enabling people to access pornography and even child pornography with a degree of anonymity is helping to undermine our society. More people who might have been able to suppress their problems in the past can find access to these sort of images. Fortunately, I understand that the Federal Police is doing a fabulous job in trying to intercept people that have these sort of issues and that are trying to access that sort of pornography. I think that that is a very positive step forward.

With regard to the internet, obviously how they deal with that is a major problem. It has been mentioned before as part of this debate for the motion that the previous government provided free filters for parents. That is most definitely a positive thing that needs to occur; that always should be one of the first lines of defence with the internet. Parents have to accept the responsibility that, no matter whether Facebook says that children can only be 13 before they can have a Facebook page, there will always be a way they can get around it. It will always fall back to the fact that the parents have to know what is going on. Things like having passwords to get onto the internet and the computer being out in the family room are important things. This is one of the best ways of keeping our children as safe as possible.

I will also mention a little bit more about shop displays,. A couple of years ago I had a bit of a war with a local retailers not far from my office. They thought it was fine to display provocative t-shirts on a t-shirt rack at about child height. In particular, there were t-shirts with stick figures in various forms of sexual activity. I asked them, quite nicely, 'I think maybe you should put that back inside the shop.' They said, 'No, we don't think there is a problem.' Then I wrote to them and said similar things. Again, I got rebuffed on that one. The final thing that did get them to pay attention was when I provided them with a photo of a little boy walking along holding his mother's arm and looking straight at that t-shirt. Faced with that photograph, they finally fixed it up—they moved the t-shirts inside, higher up and to a little more obscure place. Sometimes you have just got to get out there and have a go at these people and try to do something about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have clearly run out of time, but I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I commend all members involved for participating.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased this evening to be able to speak on this resolution as proposed by the Member for Kingston, who I know has had a considerable and certainly ongoing interest in issues around the welfare of children, particularly in relation to issues around negative body image and the sexualisation of children. All of that is derived in the main from her previous profession as a psychologist. I commend her on her endeavours this evening.

I am particularly interested in two aspects of the resolution that is before us. The first relates to children and the considerable pressures that are on them to be consumers and the issues associated with negative body image, eating disorders and mental ill health that are referred to in the member for Kingston's resolution. The issue of consumerism amongst children is of particular concern to me, in part because I think it perpetuates a rift between the haves and have-nots. It creates an additional pressure in families in relation to their material wealth. In addition, I believe it fosters a particular degree of self-interest that is quite unhealthy amongst children. I think it really goes to perpetuating the idea of 'me' and not 'we' within society. So it is of particular concern to me. I know that, according to the Queensland commission for children and young people in some of its research around this issue of consumerism amongst children, the social research company AustraliaSCAN has estimated that the 'tween' market—which I believe covers seven- to 13-year-olds—is believed to be worth more than $10 billion in Australia alone. That is an extraordinary figure. Of course we know that children will have a limited capacity to actually purchase products and services, but they can certainly act as consumers nonetheless by asking parents or other adults to purchase products for them. For instance, the Australian Psychological Society's 2000 publication Media representations and responsibilities notes that a British study has estimated that 85 per cent of a sample of four- to 13-year-olds surveyed acknowledged that they had asked their parents to buy advertised products, and 66 per cent claimed that parents had met that request. The report goes on to state that:

… it is clear that the interests of children are targeted and, thereby, exploited by advertisers. Surveys of the content of advertising directed to children consistently demonstrate that it is dominated by advertisements for foods high in sugar, fat and salt and by advertisements for toys.

It makes conclusions about the influence of television advertising, which is certainly, in its view, significant in affecting the attitudes and consumption behaviour of children and, necessarily, their families. It particularly mentions that younger children may be more vulnerable than older children to being unable to differentiate between advertising and program content, which is particularly worrying.

I know that this government has made very significant investments in education, particularly early childhood education, to give young children the best opportunities for learning, development and resilience. It is particularly important that we set these foundations for better education amongst young children, and children who are heading into teenage years.

I particularly note, and will be interested to hear the results of, a conference being hosted by Macquarie University in March this year which will focus on what it calls 'The corporate takeover of childhood—who's paying the price?' I know that that will attract a range of eminent people focused on their concerns about the commercialisation of children.

The second issue that I mentioned at the outset that was of concern to me was the issue of negative body image, eating disorders and low self-esteem that is raised in this motion. In having a look at the motion this evening I referred to an article that was in the Biologist in October 2010 titled, 'A source of thinspiration'. It makes reference to a study by members of the Harvard Medical School of the effects of the introduction of TV on body image and eating disorders in adolescent girls. In particular, it looks at the effects of eating disorders in Fiji and notes that, in that society, where television had not been introduced for some time, the impact of television ultimately appears especially profound and that Western media imagery may have a profoundly negative impact on body image and disordered eating attitudes and behaviours, even in traditional societies in which eating disorders have been thought to be rare. My time is at an end, I am afraid, and I will conclude there.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to rise and speak on this motion that has been brought forward by the member for Kingston and commend all those who have participated in this debate tonight and will participate over the next couple of speeches. This motion is very important because it highlights a critical issue that concerns many parents and should concern us as a society: the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. When we think of our nation's most precious asset, some people may be inclined to talk about our mineral assets. My view, of course, is that our most precious assets are our children, and we need to make sure that we do all that we can for them. We have a responsibility to care for them, educate them, protect them from harm and give them an opportunity to flourish and be all that they can be.

Tonight I particularly want to focus on protecting children from harm. There can be no question that parents ultimately have the responsibility for raising their own children. That is not a task that can be taken on by anyone else. It is not a task to be delegated to teachers, to church leaders or to other members of the community. But increasingly parents are concerned about the adult content to which their children are exposed in public places. What do I mean by that? I am talking about billboards; advertising in magazines; the highly sexualised images of young adults on television; and of course the new technologies, the fact that so many children these days are the owners of iPhones and iPads and that virtually all of them are very actively involved on social networking sites such as Facebook.

I will give one example that is personal to me, because it involves my sister. It is to do with the billboard ad that she had a number of concerns with. My sister is seven years younger than me and was a young adult at the time she made the complaint to the Advertising Standards Bureau. She complained about a billboard that depicted a woman whose head was cut off, whose legs and buttocks were emphasised and who was leaning forward in a very sexually provocative way into a young man. It had a slogan that said something like, 'Come along for the ride.' Of course, it was advertising something completely unrelated; it was advertising shoes. My sister objected to this image, and brought it to the attention of the Advertising Standards Bureau. The response that she got back was highly unsatisfactory. The response suggested that perhaps it was she who had the problem with this particular image and that she should not be too concerned. The point I am making here is that I think the public standards that we set for these sorts of images should be incredibly high, because these images are viewed by young adults and by children. They have an impact, particularly on young women, who can potentially start to view themselves simply as sexual objects. They have a very unhealthy impact on young men as well, who also, with these sorts of images constantly bombarding them, can start to view women in this light. We need to respect our young women and men. We need to set significant standards. I most certainly would like to see much more stringent standards in the advertising world, such that community standards other than simple self-regulation are applied.

Finally, I would like to highlight a coalition initiative. We are very concerned about cybersecurity and social networking and their impact on children. We have recently formed a review of online safety for children with a task force headed by my good friend and colleague Paul Fletcher. I look forward to being able to report back to the House on this.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Kingston on bringing this important motion to the House. From the previous contribution I heard I can see that both sides of politics are embracing this issue and are looking at the impact that sexualisation and commercialisation have on children.

I do not think that I am saying anything that is new to anyone when I say that it tends to be young girls who are targeted by this commercialisation and sexualisation. I agree wholeheartedly with what the member for Higgins said: I do not think that self-regulation is working. The example that she gave of the impact on her sister of that advertisement is a similar response that many people have to that type of advertising. But I think this issue goes a little further than just reacting to the advertising. It goes a little bit further than the impact that this commercialisation and sexualisation has on young people and the community as a whole. Through the constant portrayal of this as the norm we come to accept it; it is seen as being something that is not unusual. We are tacitly promoting sexual behaviour in very young children.

There has been an inquiry here in Australia in the Senate. I believe that one of the recommendations from that inquiry was that the onus should be on broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, retailers and manufacturers to take into account these community concerns about the sexualisation of young people.

There has been a lot of research done into this issue. The UK has taken a lead on this issue in the report that they have brought down. Following that report the Prime Minister, David Cameron, argued that what should happen was that parents should have single websites. It recommended that there should be an age restriction on music videos and buying sexually explicit videos, that there should be screening guides for broadcasters and that it should be made easier for parents to block age restricted material.

The report recommended that retailers should offer age-appropriate clothing for children. I think that that is one aspect that is very important. Young girls—and boys, for that matter—should be able to dress as children. They should be able to be children and enjoy the activities of childhood rather than strive to portray themselves as younger versions of adults. They should not be portrayed in sexual contexts.

I think that the long-term impacts for our society will be considerable. Child development authorities, child psychologists and children's advocate groups are very strong in their criticism of the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. It is a widely-known fact that sexualisation harms children. It is about body image concerns, eating disorders, gender stereotypes and premature sexualisation. It erases the lines between who is and who is not sexually mature. As well, it may increase the risk of childhood sexual abuse.

This is a very important issue. Young people are very concerned with their body image. The commercialisation and sexualisation of children is about portraying negative body images. I wholeheartedly support the motion that has been put before this parliament by the member for Kingston and I hope all other contributors to this debate can see the worthiness of the motion.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion and raise a couple of issues of concern to me. Particularly as a mother of two young preschool girls and a step-mother of two teenage girls, I see that what we have in our society is a very harmful toxin. It is not tangible but it is like a thousand cuts to very small children—that is, the overt sexual advertising out there on the wallpaper of our society.

The debate at times is couched in very superficial terms. It is about the right of advertisers to sell in the easiest way, which is to sell using sex, and the right of one adult not to be offended by it. This is not about that; this is about our responsibility as adults, as legislators and as parents to look at the very real harm—the physical emotional and mental harm that is well documented—that can result from the premature sexualisation of children. That is the toxin. If there were a physical toxin harming our children, there would be people marching in the streets; there would be people knocking down the doors of their local members of parliament. But this toxin of early sexualisation of children is just as harmful. There is an increasing weight of research and evidence that shows that exposure to sexualised imagery can be linked to childhood anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and eating disorders. The threat of premature sexualisation includes exposure to STDs as children become sexually active at an even younger age. We know that young children cannot process these images and this information. They are children, and they are our responsibility.

It is no longer as easy as just switching off the television, because we are surrounded by it. You can take your child down the street on the way to school, driving them or walking them, and you will see these big billboards. You take them to the supermarket and at their eye level they can see highly sexualised images on magazines, or there are the near-pornographic clips playing at the local bowling alley. A child—for example, a six-year-old or a seven-year-old—does not possess the ability to recognise that the sexually explicit pose of the woman wearing next to nothing is not a representation of reality but an unfair female stereotype designed to sell a product. Children are not small adults, and we are sending messages. We are sending out messages—in my view, particularly to those who engage in the heinous crime of paedophilia. The more sexualisation is out there and the more children are sexualised in advertising, which is well documented, the more justification paedophiles seek for their behaviour.

I was very disappointed in a report by this parliament not that long ago, from a committee chaired by the member for Moreton, called Reclaiming public space. It squibbed on facing up to these facts.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I spoke on that motion, and you were there and you heard me. It was a report that did not address the very serious issues. It is time we did something real. It is time we said to the Advertising Standards Board, 'Don't mock us.' Self-regulation does not work; we know that. If you have ignored the welfare of children just to make a quick, easy buck through advertising, perhaps it is time to tighten regulation on advertising. Perhaps it is time to discuss a statutory body with real powers, including issuing serious fines to offenders, because if all you get is a slap with a wet lettuce then you are going to continue taking the easy way out. We need to reclaim our public spaces in a very real way. They are the wallpaper around which our children grow up. Let us recognise the sexualisation of women and children as the toxin it is, and let us be adults and recognise our responsibility to protect the children of this country.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Kingston for proposing this motion. It gives members the opportunity to put on the record our concerns about the sexualisation and commercialisation of children and the pervasive influence of media and advertising that leaves so many parents feeling at best embattled but more often powerless against these forces. Members supporting this motion are reflecting a growing sense of unease in the community about the pressure on children to grow up too fast and the idea that childhood is just another demographic to be marketed to.

One of the reasons I wanted to speak in support of this motion is to give reassurance to parents out there that they are not alone in these concerns and in their desire to stand up for their children's right to grow up in their own time and in their own way. Too often parents are made to feel that they are somehow being prudish or out of touch with the modern world when they raise objections about things their children are being exposed to without being given the opportunity to exercise their judgment as parents. As a mother of an eight-year-old and a five-year-old, I know exactly how those parents feel. Raising my children according to the values their father and I think are important requires constant vigilance and a willingness to be the bad guys when necessary. We like to think this approach is buying us the time we think our kids need to develop sufficient cognitive and emotional capacity—to grow up, in other words—to apply some critical judgment to what they see and hear in the media and to build a sense of themselves independent of media images. All parents would feel the same way, but why do they have to feel so besieged while they do it? Why do they have to feel like they are fighting these forces within our society and having to shield their kids at a time when they should be expanding their world day by day and finding their place in it.

There have been terrible and dangerous times to be a child in our history and in many parts of the world even today. Surely, though, in the developed world we have the ability to create an environment that nurtures our children and that gives them the time and the tools they need to prepare them for adulthood rather than laying traps for them to have to negotiate while they take that journey. Of course, nothing can replace parental responsibility as the primary source of control over what children watch, listen to and buy, and that is a strong theme in the Letting children be children report.

The report also acknowledges the challenges of the wallpaper of modern life that has been referred to by other speakers in this debate—the images, products and electronic content that are all around us—that defies the ability and even denies the right of parents to exercise their control. This was illustrated by a column by Mia Freedman in last weekend's Sunday Mail. She described taking her children to a family restaurant only to have them glued to a TV screen showing a raunchy music video that she would never have shown them in her own home. Her standards and the boundaries she would have otherwise set for her children were completely irrelevant in that situation—and that is a situation that would be familiar to parents all over Australia.

I went to Mia Freedman's blog today to see what the reaction had been to her column. I want to share with the House that I think Mia Freedman's blog also demonstrates one way that parents can reclaim their rights to set boundaries, and that is by asserting their rights as consumers, because it is their money that gets spent on kids and by kids. In amongst the posts—and there were a lot of posts from parents supporting her column—was one from a company that packages film clips and sells them to places like restaurants and gyms. The company rep was very anxious to make it known that it has products specifically for a family market and that public venues can easily choose to purchase and play those. That a company was so quick to defend its product and reputation shows that parents are not as powerless as they might think.

I endorse the comments of other speakers and agree that governments should certainly act on recommendations like those in the Senate report from 2008 and the recent UK report to make it easier for people to make complaints about media content and to give those complaints more weight, to give them real teeth. But parents should also go straight for the jugular—go for the bottom line of companies marketing these products. Parents should take advantage of consumer campaigns and especially social network campaigns to stand up to those who would offend their children's right to be children. Companies and advertisers are seeking to exert their power in the marketplace and parents acting on behalf of their children can exert it right back at them.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by thanking the member for Kingston for bringing this motion to the House. Like her, my coalition colleagues and I are vehemently opposed to the sexualisation of children. We share the concerns raised in our community regarding the negative impact that sexualisation of children can have on their development, including the potential susceptibility of children to develop poor body image, eating disorders, depression and low self-esteem.

We believe that childhood is a time for children to learn, to play and to develop the social skills that are crucial to adult life. Kids should just enjoy being kids. I am sure everyone agrees with me that childhood is the foundation to adult development. It should be a time when kids spend time exploring ways of thinking, feeling and expressing themselves, without a barrage of external forces pressuring them too early into their adult world. I do not think I am alone in thinking that the blatant sexual portrayal of children in any form—regardless of whether it is in magazine articles, in advertisements, on billboards, in multimedia formats or via merchandise marketed to children—is inappropriate. Surely children are entitled to develop at their own pace, without additional pressures on their development from inappropriate marketing and advertising. At the last election, as part of the coalition's platform we made it clear that, in our view, the current classification system was broken. This position has not changed. A coalition government will build on the work of the 2008 Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment and review the current system. We believe that the classification system must take into account new technologies accessible by, and capable of delivering content to, children, young people and adults. It is imperative that we develop a comprehensive new framework not just limited to content but which looks at the platform that it is delivered on.

With this in mind, recently the coalition announced the formation of an online safety working group, an extremely important initiative that I am involved in which is aimed at helping to equip parents and carers with the tools to better protect children from the risks associated with the internet and social media. Recent figures estimate that a staggering 2.2 million Australian children actively engage online. There is a real concern that many parents and guardians are not equipped to deal with this challenge.

Today's children are the first generation of young people who will grow up with the internet and social media as an integral part of the way they live, learn and communicate. The modern online environment now includes interactive activities like social media sites, SMS messaging, Skype, apps and games, to name a few. The internet is no longer accessed just through the home PC. It is accessed through iPods, tablets, game consoles, smartphones and the developing smart TV technologies. It is more likely than not that children will have at least one if not two of these options to access the internet. We know that many children have been the victim of online bullying and that there is the issue of kids having access to sites that are inappropriate for them. In forming this working group the coalition is not seeking to repeat Labor's ham-fisted attempt to put a filter on the internet or to hinder the dynamic nature of the online environment. What we want to do is support and equip parents, guardians and teachers in their work of protecting our children and preparing them for adulthood.

We on this side of the House believe that the family unit is the core element of a strong society. There is no denying that the family is where children should learn values from their parents and guardians. We encourage parents and guardians to help their children navigate a happy and safe childhood before they begin to come to grips with the complexities of sexuality and adult life. It is important that parents and guardians shield their children from age inappropriate material whatever the source, including the internet, as much as they possibly can. There is no doubt that this is a difficult task, but it has to be done to ensure that our children are safe and secure. We want them to have the opportunity to be children for as long as they can. There is nothing more precious than our children. To summarise, I borrow the following from the late Whitney Houston's song Greatest Love of All:

I believe the children are our future

Teach them well and let them lead the way

Show them all the beauty they possess inside

Give them a sense of pride to make it easier

Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

(Time expired)

Debate adjourned.