0/5

Noni pushes for new kids’ TV Classifications

"What a 4 year old sees should not be the same as what a 9 year old sees," says Noni Hazlehurst in the first of a two-part interview.

With her early television work dating back to The Box (1975) and The Sullivans (1976), Noni Hazlehurst is a television survivor.

But as respected as she is for playing  Det. Superintendent Bernice Waverley in Seven’s City Homicide she will forever be associated with her 24 years as a Presenter on ABC’s acclaimed Play School.

It instilled a set of values for children’s television that she still champions today, in her work as National Ambassador for child welfare charity Barnados Australia. She has also given a number of industry speeches on the state of children’s television, including the Hector Crawford Memorial Lecture at the 2007 SPAA Conference.

Her passion for children and the media runs deep, as she explained to TV Tonight.

“It springs from Play School. I didn’t know anything about kids. I hadn’t held one for longer than ten minutes when I had my first baby,” she admits.

“But because I had such good teachers at Play School, they made me realise how important it was to have age-appropriate entertainment for children, and what a wasteland the media is generally for children who are of pre-school age.

“They are the most critical years of a child’s life on every level. Emotionally, physically, spiritually. It gave me an incredible focus on abuse in all its forms.”

Now she wants to see change in Television Classifications, to better reflect different stages of learning and comprehension. Children’s Classifications should be broken into sub-groups: Under Five, Under Eight, Under Twelve.

“To group all kids in an amorphous group as being ‘Kids’ is wrong,” she defends.

“What a 4 year old sees should not be the same as what a 9 year old sees. They can’t assimilate the information nor should they be expected to.

“I still think an awful lot of what passes as ‘Young Children’s Television’ is contributing to what are now becoming buzzwords: the ‘premature sexualisation’ of children and ‘adultification’ of children.

“You see it in advertising campaigns in just about every medium available.

“Unless there is an Adult there who can contextualise or edit or censor –and I see nothing wrong with censoring for small children– they can’t tell the difference, unless someone tells them, between an ad, a cartoon, the news, drama. It’s all just input and we’re not filtering it properly.”

But it is not just Classifications that need redressing.

There are still battles to be fought with complaints systems with bodies such as the  Advertising Standards Bureau and the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

“If you make a complaint about a billboard and it’s not upheld you can’t appeal for 5 years or 7 years or some outrageous number of years. It’s a paper tiger,” she insists.

But complaints receive a more positive outcome when females are the decision makers.

“Often there is a gender divide. It’s often women who are the primary carers of children who are generally supportive of complaints in this area. It’s men, and I’m not sure what kind of men, who say ‘Nanny state! I was brought up on Playboy and I’m alright.’

“But you can’t compare anything with what we are living through with what our kids are living through. It’s everywhere, it’s ubiquitous, bombarding us on a daily basis.”

On the day we meet, Hazlehurst is drawn to a news article in which a Centre Against Sexual Abuse sees about 300 children under the age of 10 each year displaying sexualised behaviour. 10 years ago, the program for seven to 15-year-olds received 10 referrals a year. Now it gets more than 150.

Clearly there are still fights for activists such as Hazlehurst to still win.

“I am absolutely passionate about it because I think more and more people need to speak up about it,” she says.

“People can achieve change.”

Tomorrow: Part 2: Noni Hazlehurst’s speaks on City Homicide and network schedules.

11 Responses

  1. Noni is right, especially with the increasing challenges for childrens television in this country.

    Simply, ACMA should completely rewrite the childrens TV standards for the 21st century: including Australian content percentages for pay childrens channels, make allowances for the development and growth of on demand video services, allowing P and C quotas to be spread over digital FTA channels and the elimination of the difference between standard C programs and C drama to create a strong platform for commercial networks to invest in the C classification (i.e. not just drama), like they did in the past.

  2. @ Tasmanian Devil: I am very well familiar with the classification guidelines for both TV and film/gaming. I was merely pointing out that Ms. Hazlehurst’s suggestions for a more flexible classification system are already in place, however it is ultimately up to the television stations and parents to apply them. As the G classification only designates “very mild” content as opposed to content that is specifically tailored for children, the existing P and C classifications I feel are more than enough for parents/guardians to make informed decisions as to what their children watch.

    From what I’ve seen, programmes classified P should contain no material that would in any way offend, harm or instill undesirable values in children, and primarily consist of educational material.

    On the other hand, programmes classified C fall within the G/PG threshold, and are primarily given to programmes that are targeted to children (as opposed to infants), though they may not necessarily be issued a G rating were they to be released on DVD or be screened beyond the C timezone (as has been the case with Ocean Girl, Wicked Science, Cyber Girl, Elephant Diaries etc.).

  3. We already have P (“under five”), C (“under eight”) and G (“under twelve”) classifications. What more does she want? -.-

    I understand that the sexualisation of children is a problem, however the root of the problem lies with parents who pander to and spoil their children. Adding extra TV classifications and further complicating the existing system isn’t going to challenge the status quo.

  4. We don’t need more classifications or restrictions for childrens content, it is up the the parents to screen what their children are watching. But parents too often use the TV as a baby sitter, taking no notice of the current classifications, and complain if anything upsets their child.

    There is already a (free to air) TV channel (ABC2) dedicated to programming for pre-schoolers every day, during the day time. It is the older age groups of children that really needs more new and decent programming.

    I only agree on the point of advertising, with advertising on commercial TV networks during childrens shows not always been suitable. I still remember when Nine would show various cartoon series (for children) in the middle of the night, with frequent inappropriate advertising, in the distant past.

  5. I can understand her point that what is suitable for a 12 year old is different to what is suitable for a 4 year old but the problem is they can make as many classifications as they like but unless parents actually monitor their kids viewing (which doesn’t happen these days) it is all for nothing.

  6. Great interview David. Noni also hits out at a disturbing trend by advertisers to portray children as high fashion adults in today’s Herald Sun, the most recent example being the latest Witchery catalogue.

Leave a Reply