Family-unfriendly proposals in CTVA Code

Commercial TV Australia is reviewing its Code of Practice, with a deadline for public comment of September 19. There are many proposals that will not meet with the approval of parents, but chief among them is the big cut to G time.

The Draft CTVA Code proposes that G time be from 4.00-7.30 pm on weekday evenings and 6.00 am-7.30 pm on weekends, to 4-5 pm on weekdays and 6 am-8.30 am on weekends. (The morning G zone from 6.00-8.30 am is not proposed to be changed.) The current total weekly G zone is 57 hours; the proposals would reduce it to 22.5 hours. Such a drastic reduction, in our view, needs clear and compelling support. No such support is offered.

Young Media Australia's concerns over this proposed cut are heightened by the fact that existing concessions, to news, current affairs and live sport, already seriously erode the suitability of a sizeable chunk of the programming allowed during G time. If the time zone in which "news" is shown becomes PG, there'd be no need for broadcasters to consider the child audience, as currently required.

CTVA advances a number of reasons to justify the cuts to G time.

Firstly, CTVA argues that the change is needed to keep pace with the diversification of viewing options in Australian homes. The range of technologies cited (pay TV etc) are by no means available in all Australian homes, since many can't afford them. Free-to-air TV remains the main choice for home entertainment.

Secondly, CTVA argues that parents should and do monitor their children's viewing of PG programs. YMA finds that though parents understand the meaning of PG, few have the time or the wherewithal to be an effective monitor of children's use of the TV, especially at the end of the day when there are multiple demands including the preparation of the evening meal and helping children with homework. This is another example of family-unfriendliness in the proposed changes.

The average Australian parent, even if he or she does have time between 5.00 and 7.30 pm to keep a close eye on what small children are watching, does not necessarily have the expertise to gauge or anticipate the impact of particular viewing choices. Many parents simply assume that PG material is suitable for all children, without appreciating the crucial developmental difference between children of different ages in terms of their ability to They may only find out when it is too late, for example when they have to get up in the middle of the night to comfort an upset child after a nightmare.

Thirdly, CTVA claims that an anomaly arises around school holidays, where programming during the day is already mostly PG. This argument does not, however, explain why the ‘anomaly’ should not be corrected by tighter regulation in school holidays, rather than a loosening during the other 40 weeks of the year. The community has been prepared to accommodate the fact that school holidays happen at different times across Australia, and to live with the minor concession of disallowing M programmes between 12.00 and 3.00 on weekdays during those periods. This needs to be recognised as the compromise which it is, not an anomaly and certainly not a justification for the further dilution of the protection children receive.

Fourthly, CTVA argues that an increase in PG time will increase diversity. YMA supports any change to the Code which can increase the quality and diversity of programming. However, it does not agree that this could not happen without exceeding the bounds of the G classification. YMA seriously doubts that the community will be willing to trade off more ‘exciting’ programming for the increase in risk to children from the screening of unsuitable material.

The objects of the Broadcasting Services Act include the promotion of high quality and innovative programme material (s 3(1)(f)), but they also include the protection of children from exposure to program material which may be harmful to them’ (s 3(1)(j)). Moreover, this latter objective is stated to be a high priority, whereas the former is not. YMA concludes that in any area where ‘quality’ and the protection of children come into tension, the tension must be resolved in favour of the protection of children.