Mrs VALE (10:00 AM) —The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is a further refinement of the film, video, publications and computer games classification laws, and I support the bill. I wish to represent to this parliament children who are being harmed by legal sexually explicit material. I remind those who deride all forms of censorship that there are no rights without responsibilities. They are the two sides of the one coin.

The subject of sexually explicit material and its availability has been regularly considered and debated by this parliament over the past 30 years. During that time, the focus of legislation has shifted from censorship to classification. I personally value, as I am sure most Australians do, the principles of personal freedom and freedom of speech that underlie the transition. One of the advantages that we have in this parliament today, which our predecessors in this place did not have, is the wisdom of hindsight. We are able to see the results of changing from censorship to classification.

Throughout history there has always been a tension, a community concern, about the availability of sexually explicit material. The extent of censorship has oscillated from time to time and from one place to another. Censorship laws were one of the first laws of the new Commonwealth of Australia enacted in this parliament in 1901. There is no question of their broad community support during the first half of the 20th century. Possibly as a result of the social flow-on effects of the Second World War, which saw enormous disruption to normal family life and adult relationships, community attitudes towards the censorship of obscene materials began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

In 1970, the then minister for customs, Don Chipp, released a ministerial statement on censorship that signalled the commencement of the move from censorship to classification. In the statement he said that the concept of censorship was abhorrent to all persons who believe in the basic freedoms, yet within every community there is a body of opinion that demands some protection from the consequences of total absence of rule. At some point, censorship becomes a necessary evil. He then introduced the idea of community standards being defined in the context of open public scrutiny and broad community discussion. In other words, the censorship/classification debate was not closed off one way or another. In 1973, the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, introduced the policy that adults should be entitled to read, hear and view what they wish in private and in public, and that persons—or those in their care—be not exposed to unsolicited material that was offensive to them.

These two statements, one from a minister in a coalition government and the other from a minister in the ALP government three years later, established the ground rules for changing an important and contentious public policy. Both sides of the parliament shared a view that the old censorship regime needed to be liberalised so that adults could be able to read, hear or see, within certain limits, whatever they wished. But their right to do this was no greater than the right of others to be protected from being exposed to the same material that had, for most of the millennium, been considered obscene or offensive.

Judging the achievement of the Chipp-Murphy objectives 30 years later, I believe that most fair-minded people would agree that the right of those who wish to see, hear and watch whatever they wish has been well met. I think it is also fair to say that those who wish to be protected or who should be protected from offensive and obscene material have, in the real world, not had their equal right met as fully as it was intended 30 years ago.

It is one thing to be offended by something; it is another thing to be harmed by something. The rights of those who are offended are as important as the rights of anyone else, and this parliament has a duty to protect their rights. But it is not those who are offended by obscene material that I am primarily concerned to highlight in this debate. The truth is this: what may be X-rated and a bit of a giggle to some adults, when viewed by children can sexually traumatise them. It can turn them into dysfunctional adults, and sometimes habitual sex offenders, for the rest of their lives.

While the legal availability of X-rated material began in limited quantities in 1984, it was not until the early 1990s that the mass marketing machines got going. So it is not surprising that it is only now that the harm caused by exposing children to sexually explicit material is beginning to float to the surface of public attention. On 18 June last year the Melbourne Age reported that, in 1998, 84 kindergarten and primary school children with deviant sexual behaviour in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs had been referred for treatment at a clinic, the Birrell Centre for Children, in Ringwood. Most of the 84 children had used force to trap or trick other children into having sex with them. Many had sexually penetrated other young children, had forced others into sexual activity or had been touching the genitals of their peers. Others were treated for threatening to sexually assault people or for masturbating in public. While most of the children treated at the clinic came from homes where the parents were under stress from divorce or illness or other types of disruption, the trigger that damaged their sexual development and turned them into abusers was their exposure to sexually explicit material. I have had inquiries made and I understand that a major factor was X-rated videos.

Using ABS population statistics as a basis, 84 children in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne translate to about 4,100 children across Australia. According to the 1999 Productivity Commission's Report on government services, there were 97,929 notifications of child abuse and neglect in Australia in 1997-98. About half of these notifications were substantiated at the close of investigation. This indicates that up to eight per cent of substantiated notifications of child abuse and neglect could contain sexually explicit material as a factor. Whatever the correct number is, be it larger or smaller, child abuse caused by children viewing sexually explicit videos is a new phenomenon and will continue to worsen until something is done.

The effects upon children are appalling. Children who are sexually traumatised show a range of pathological responses, such as sexual dysfunction, preoccupation with sexual activity, sleep disorders, withdrawal from other children and adults, and an inclination to act out what they have seen or experienced. This acting out was confirmed by the Division of Paediatrics of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians last year. They released a report that said children could not understand the emotional cause and effect that lies behind what they see on TV, including videos. Consequently, they may copy the action they see without really understanding the consequences and may harm themselves or other children as a result. I commend the college for this report. It was entitled Getting in the picture—a parent's and carer's guide for the better use of television for children. I recommend the report to members and parents. I understand that it has been generously made available free of charge.

Late last year, my attention was drawn to a report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence which was tabled in the Queensland parliament. On page 129 it stated:

According to the report, more than one community received COD consignments of pornographic videos worth between $4,000 and $5,000. With that volume of sexually explicit material being pumped into isolated indigenous communities, something has got to be done to alert people to the harm they can cause to the children of those communities.

I would like to suggest to the government that we consider the merits of placing health warnings on these videos that explicitly warn of the danger to a child's health and the consequences. It will be no use putting in a ho-hum statement. The current consumer advice on X-rated videos is totally inadequate. It states `18+', followed by the words, `Restricted to adults 18 years and over'. It is merely advice. I understand that there are some deceived parents who have allowed their children to watch X-rated videos in the belief that the videos were a form of sex education that would be of benefit.

Then there are the predators. It is well established that one of the ways in which paedophiles inveigle children into having sex with them is to first show them sexually explicit material. For these reasons, the penalty for allowing children to see sexually explicit material should also be shown on the videos. These notices should appear on the video box covers and at the start of the film. I believe that these changes could be incorporated into the bill without any amendment. Furthermore, there need to be more treatment clinics for recovery programs, such as the Birrell Children's Centre in Victoria, where children who have been exposed to such material can get specialist help. I would like to see the federal and state governments properly resourcing such recovery programs. They should be as accessible as the product that causes them the harm. It is a widely accepted principle that the abused often becomes the abuser. A dollar spent when a child becomes sexually traumatised will not only save years of pain; it will save thousands of dollars later in life.

This new cause of child abuse cannot be blamed on past generations. It is a problem caused by our generation, and it has been drawn to our attention. I am reminded of article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that deals with the protection from abuse and neglect. It says:

Nothing could be clearer than that. Because of the time constraint, I have not mentioned the many people I know, including me, who have been exposed to unsolicited, sexually explicit material—and that raises the issues of non-compliance. I have instead tried to focus on a new and grave problem involving children in our community—but that is another issue for another time. It is not a question anymore of material that is offensive to a person's moral standards and values, but a grave new health problem—the psychological trauma and physical violence that can arise from viewing sexually explicit material. I hasten to add that I am not talking about violence depicted in sexually explicit material, as this has been prohibited under the classification guidelines for some time now, but the sexual violence that can come from children viewing non-violent, sexually explicit material.

Today we look back with horror at children working in the mines and the mills of 200 years ago. We are appalled at how adults could condone children working in conditions that stunted their small bodies for life and terrified their minds. Is what happened then much different from the way young lives are being emotionally stunted, traumatised and twisted by an adult world pursuing pleasure and money today? Let us not visit another plague upon our children. It is my hope that the passage of this bill signals a change in policy direction. I hope it marks a change on both sides of the House whereby the health and safety of children are considered ahead of the passing fancies of adults in the realm of what is, after all, just pastime entertainment. I support this bill, just as I support health warnings on non-violent, sexually explicit material, and help for children who have been harmed by non-violent, sexually explicit videos. I commend the bill to the House.