OPENING OF STUDENTS PARLIAMENT The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) took the chair at 10.07 a.m. and read the prayer. The ACTING SPEAKER — Ladies and gentlemen, students, parents, teachers, members of Parliament and helpers, welcome to the Students Parliament. It is wonderful to see it so widely supported yet again. As you have quickly realised, and I know many of you have been working on your topics for some time, there are a number of things that are common to your life at school and life at the Parliament — there are bells, there is usually someone in authority above you, and there is hopefully lots of learning. I hope you find the day enjoyable, productive and educational and that you get an insight into the workings of this special place. I commend you for taking part. I acknowledge a parliamentary colleague sitting in the gallery, the Honourable Bill Forwood, a member for Templestowe Province, who is here to support his school. The rules have been adequately covered and we do not need to cover them again. For those of you who are not keen followers of Parliament, I am Inga Peulich, the member for Bentleigh, and I particularly welcome one of the schools in my electorate. I have been a member of Parliament since 1992 and an Acting Speaker since 1996. Today my job is to chair the debate and to try to be as impartial and fair as I possibly can. When we open up questions to the whole of the chamber I will endeavour to spread them around so that everyone has an opportunity to ask questions and get a special feel of the place. I also acknowledge the Serjeant-at-Arms, Jensen Lai, and thank him for his assistance this morning. 22 August 2000 Students Parliament 1 TOPIC 1 — Violence on television does not corrupt young people. They can tell fact from fiction. Presenting school — McKinnon Secondary College Challenging school — St John’s Greek Orthodox College Mr LAZAR — We at McKinnon Secondary College strongly believe television violence does not influence the way youth act or behave. This issue is so commonly debated, but does it deserve the attention it is getting? The debate concerning violence in the media was flaring long before television was introduced. Some 2500 years ago Aristotle suggested that drama was effective and beneficial because of catharsis. This means that the audience can become psychologically involved with the story while still knowing that it is fictional. When the aggression climaxes among the actors, there is a release of pressure in the audience. According to Aristotle this leaves them cleansed and uplifted, making them less likely to act in a violent way. So violent drama is not instilling violence in the audience; it is leaving them less likely to act violently. Surely we must reconsider our decisions to make television the subject of this debate? We are asking if television is instilling violence into young people while a child can walk into a toy store and be greeted by 50 different models of toy guns all saying, ‘Buy me!’. We accuse television of being an inspiration for violence when someone under 15 years of age can walk into a video store and hire an M-rated movie that contains much more violence than you will see on television, not to mention the bad language. However, there is the odd exception of proper violence on television. We have Traffic Accident Commission ads. But then we ask: would we rather have more people speeding and suffering the consequences? These ads are a good thing. They discourage dangerous driving. The Quit ads, while being pretty disgusting, serve as a good reminder for smokers about what they are doing to themselves. These ads are an exception and a very good one to make. Then we move on to computer and video games. Graphic technologies let game designers show violence with a realism that has never been witnessed in games before. The games also put a gun in a child’s hand and let him or her shoot the computer-animated characters. Children actually get the chance to be the killers! Ratings advice tells parents the level of violence in a show. The advice is good, and if parents are concerned they should take notice of it. Accordingly, if the ratings are followed there is absolutely no chance of violence on television influencing the child. Children are able to tell fact from fiction. When Road Runner drops a bomb on Coyote, yet Coyote is back walking around 2 minutes later, children know the situation is not real. They are not stupid. Television acts solely as a source of entertainment. It is not a model for how people should live their lives. As mentioned before, it is one of the last sources — — The ACTING SPEAKER — The honourable member’s time has expired. I call on members of St John’s Greek Orthodox College to pose questions. Mr KOTSOPOULOS — McKinnon Secondary College talked about movies being full of violence. But television is full of movies that are violent. Miss SEGEV — McKinnon Secondary College believes ratings are also applied to movies. When the ticket is handed in at a cinema, people will be told if they are under the age limit. People are also given advice about ratings, and if that advice is not followed it is their problem. Miss TSIMIKLIS — Plato was Aristotle’s student. He said the opposite. He said drama can give the wrong kind of expression to young people’s minds. What is your opinion? Miss MILLER — Aristotle and Plato both had great impact on the structure of society, but it is also violence in reality that affects children. There are a lot of wars and violence in the world. Television 2 Students Parliament 22 August 2000 is only a machine and cannot force people to act violently. Wars are not caused by people watching too many Bugs Bunny cartoons. Miss NICOLAIDIS — The Quit and Transport Accident Commission advertisements are scary but not violent. They are used for good purpose. McKinnon Secondary College is not proving that violence does not harm people. What do you say about that? Miss DIAS SANTILHANO — It was said that violence on television does not have an effect on people. It was not said that violence did not have an effect on people. The ACTING SPEAKER — The time allotted for questions to the challenging school has expired. Questions are now opened up to the rest of the chamber. Mr HOPKINS — Aren’t the toy guns you mentioned in your speech advertised on television? Mr LAZAR — You are right that toy guns are advertised on television, but only water pistols. Miss McMAHON — Lots of children copy things they see on television because usually they have happy endings. But life is not always like that. Take wrestling on television as an example. I have relatives who like to re-enact scenes from the wrestling programs. If they were to get hurt, it would be because of the material shown on television. What is your response to that? Miss MILLER — Television cannot be blamed for the wrestling shown on it. Wrestling takes place in real life, and people could go to a wrestling match and then act violently as a result. Television cannot be blamed for the violence. Wrestling is a sport that takes place anyway, and if people are going to act violently they will act violently and television cannot be blamed. Miss ARONFELD — It is commonly known that children are not always supervised when watching television. Isn’t it true to say that when children see their favourite personality being violent on television they admire that character and want to imitate it? Miss SEGEV — McKinnon Secondary College believes if a child watches a television show that is rated PG in Victoria it means the child should be watching it with a parent. If it shows violent content — — The ACTING SPEAKER — The honourable member’s time has not expired but the time allotted to the topic has. I commend the opening teams for their performance. I have been chairing the Student Parliament for some years and the standard continues to improve. Well done. 22 August 2000 Students Parliament 3 Topic 2 — Mandatory sentencing will help to reduce crime by deterring people from committing crimes. Presenting school — Banksia Secondary College Challenging School — Kerang Technical High School Miss NOEL — We, the team from Banksia Secondary College, firmly believe that mandatory sentencing will help reduce crime by deterring people from committing crimes. Indeed, the imposition of mandatory sentencing will send a message to would-be offenders that a tough stand is being taken to reduce escalating crime rates. Such a system would ensure that consistency exists in sentencing offenders and appease public concern about crime and punishment. For too long now we have seen repeat offenders receive light sentences that do nothing to deter them from criminal activity. Most Australians are sick and tired of criminals who break into their homes and steal their cars and anything else that is not nailed down. The legislation is harsh but it is designed to punish and deter. We may feel a tinge of remorse when young offenders go to jail, but the law cannot and should not discriminate. The community expects consistency from our judicial system if it is to work effectively. As crimes are on the increase we need to send a strong message to the community that offenders must do the time if they commit the crime. Let us not forget that mandatory sentencing already occurs in the area of drink-driving.