Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is very important that people understand the concerns surrounding the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Bill 2008 that have been brought to us by a number of groups, including the ACL. There are concerns that we are starting to move towards self-regulation of the industry and, in so doing, are opening up potential loopholes for people who have the capacity to put themselves in positions in relation to classifications that may not reflect the true aspirations of the community.

There are strong concerns held about this area, and I think that as we go forward we need to make sure that we keep in contact especially with families who have seen the problems that can occur when there is endorsement by the public of a certain classification and the issues that can arise for certain members of the community who can be affected. We are affected by what we see and what we hear, and we see classifications as an endorsement of a community’s view about how they see a certain issue. We also note that the views and self-assessment of someone who has a vested interest in getting a media product such as a publication, a film or a computer game out into the public may not be the same as the community’s views when that product actually arrives out in the public. So what is going to be a mechanism that will truly take it back to a reflection of the family’s view of how these things should be classified?

This bill increases the exposure of minors to violent and graphic adult material in the interests of advertising and industry profiteering. The safeguards to the bill include industry assurances that organisations will act responsibly and in compliance with the scheme; however, there is a question about the validity of these assurances should profits ever be threatened. Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to the current advertising arrangements. The current prohibitions are considered to unduly restrict advertising because, due to the risk of piracy, products are held back from classification until very close to their release date. The intention is to create a regime under which the likely classification of a product is assessed in advance for the purposes of advertising. Exposure to the advertising will be restricted to the appropriate classification level. However, we have always got the issue of the juxtaposition between what the market deems appropriate and what the community believes is appropriate to maintain some structure and control over what their families—especially children—are exposed to. This is why, especially in today’s arena, we possibly need to be a little bit more vigilant about this bill.

The growth of the computer games industry is driven by technological advances. However, the proposed scheme can be reviewed only in three years time. This is not in line with the speed of technology and leaves a question as to the speed at which schemes will date. The American Psychological Association has concluded that scientific evidence shows a cause-and-effect relationship between television and computer game violence and aggression in children. Children are more likely to affiliate with and imitate the actions of the character with whom they identify: in computer games this is often the shooter, the wielder of weapons or the driver of out-of-control vehicles. This indicates a requirement for strict regulations to ensure that materials of a violent nature are not viewed by minors or inappropriate audiences.

Research also indicates that exposure to violent computer games increases aggressive thoughts, emotions and actions amongst children. That comes from a study by Anderson and Bushman, Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. The quality of graphics is such that the violence depicted in some computer games matches the quality of that seen in movies. This makes it very hard for children to differentiate between fact and fiction. We are affected by what we see; we are affected by what we hear.

In 2006, sales of computer and video game hardware and software in Australia exceeded $1 billion. Australians purchase 12.5 million computer and video games each year. A survey of popular Sega and Nintendo games taken a few years ago found that 80 per cent of them primarily featured violence or aggression. According to Bushman and Huesmann of the University of Michigan, the effect of media violence on aggressive behaviours is nearly as great as the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

The University of Michigan study also reports that playing violent video games actually changes brain function. Chronic players are desensitised to real life violence. Desensitising reduces emotional responses to repeated stimulus. We have seen this in our own country, especially in the intervention, and that is why we try to get unrated and X-rated material away from children. We do not want these children desensitised. We know that it is a form of reprogramming of those children. There is nothing more insidious, I feel, than to see four- and five-year-old kids being open to pornography that—to be brutally honest—might involve animals and a whole range of things.

We have to always be aware of what this does to a child’s brain, regardless of the colour of their skin, and the desensitising effects that forms of media can be responsible for. We have to try to always make sure that we have got unaffected kids and quiet streets. The ways to deliver that are not just through security but also through the formation of the child, the formation of the person. What children see through their surroundings as the norm is important, but what is more important is what they see endorsed by the community as the norm. If they are not receiving those meters, mechanisms and indicators from their immediate family then at least the community should endorse what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

I believe strongly that self-regulation is a move away from that. We should not allow that. We should be making sure we have a clear mechanism that provides our nation with the community values that we hold. This should not be done through a self-regulating body, which has an inherent self-interest in making sure that what makes them money gets out in the community rather than what is appropriate.

I know that there is a belief that this bill is non-controversial. Distributors have a good idea what the classification will be and do not provide advance copies of the work to avoid piracy issues. I understand the issues around this. This bill is not going to create a lot of interest today—I note that there are only three speakers on it.