NZ Cabinet Ministers Called to Tackle the Sexualisation of Childhood with Aussie Counter-parts

According to the National Council of Women of New Zealand the current meeting of New Zealand and Australian leadership provides a ready-made forum for raising the concern of trans-tasman exporting of offensive, sexualising products for children.

Perhaps New Zealand consumers would not have needed to boycott Cotton On products had Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called for rapid implementation of recommendations following the Australian Senate Inquiry into the Sexualisation of Children in the Contemporary Media.

“While the Senate recommendations made in mid-2008 were seen as significantly diluted from what was put forward via submissions,” says Elizabeth Bang, NCWNZ National President, “they would have acted as a deterrent at the very least to businesses, like Cotton On, seeking to make profit from sexualising childhood and generating brand recognition.”

The submission to the Inquiry from the Office of the Child Safety Commissioner, an entity similar to the New Zealand Children’s Commission, captured the very essence of the problem currently faced by Kiwi parents:

The Office of the Child Safety Commissioner, Victoria, has been concerned about the sale of children’s clothing and underwear displaying sexually suggestive slogans. Given that some of this clothing is available for toddlers who cannot even read the messages and that the messages suggest sexual availability and character traits not attributable to, or desirable for children, it is clear that the ‘beneficiaries’ of this clothing are adults.

One of the several recommendations made by this Commission to the Senate Inquiry included improvements to Advertising codes administered by the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau.

NCWNZ was of the belief that New Zealand had such protection in place already, and so questioned the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in relation to sexually suggestive slogans on children’s clothing.

However, according to a representative from ASA, not all slogans can be classified as advertising and are therefore not covered by the existing codes:

“the slogans described, while clearly likely to create serious and widespread offence, do not in my mind “promote an interest of any person, product or service, impart information, educate, advocate an idea, belief, political viewpoint or opportunity”.

“This means that as it currently stands in New Zealand, we are not properly protected from the sexualisation of childhood,” says Elizabeth Bang. “This needs to change”.

ENDS

© Scoop Media