Senator TIERNEY (1:33 PM) —I too wish to speak on this matter, a matter with which I have had some ongoing involvement since 1993 when one of the Senate committees first had a look at this issue. It was there that we saw the tremen dous possibilities of the Internet as the main driver of the e-commerce revolution that is now sweeping the country and developing a whole new information economy which will place Australia very well in economic development into the next century.

Like all new industries that suddenly come upon society, we have to have a look at this industry's impact. Over time, governments respond to regulate industries in various ways. All industries, whether they like it or not, are subject to some type of government regulation. Most industries prefer not to be regulated—obviously it is time consuming and there are costs of compliance. But it is necessary for industries to be regulated if the laws of the land are to be upheld. This industry has many legal aspects which we need to address.

I would ask those opposite, with particular reference to Senator Bishop in his last speech, how he really intends to address the key issue here, which is: what do we do about illegal material on the Internet which, if it were shown on any other medium—whether it be print, film, video or TV—would be considered illegal activity?

Senator Stott Despoja —The Crimes Act.

Senator TIERNEY —Ah, the senator says, `The Crimes Act.' Excellent. We do have laws and those laws are used to enforce various measures and can perhaps do that very well in terms of some of the media we referred to. I will ask Senator Stott Despoja to tell us how the Crimes Act can be effectively applied in this particular instance. I do not think Constable Plod on his bicycle is going to catch up with the very fast moving Internet.

Senator Schacht interjecting—

Senator TIERNEY —Senator, you have raised the absolute essential point—that the current laws and the way in which they are applied to traditional media are very difficult to apply to this medium. That is why we have to come up with a range of new measures. Let us have a look at what some of this illegal material is that we have to deal with.

Senator Lundy —Why don't you give us a graphic description and grab a headline or two?

Senator TIERNEY —I cannot quite hear what Senator Lundy is interjecting, but she is probably trying to trivialise this and say, `It is just porn.' It is a lot more than that. Certainly we have problems with things like racial vilification, and I commend SBS television's Insight program last week for putting a major focus on racial vilification as a problem on the Net. There is also extreme violence on the Net. You can get a homemade recipe for making a bomb on the Net. Paedophile rings use the Net for entrapment.

Senator Lundy —You are such a sensationalist, Senator Tierney. This is not what this legislation is about.

Senator TIERNEY —I know this is embarrassing, Senator Lundy, but these things exist on the Net at the moment, and they are illegal and the government has a duty to do something about this illegal material. If it were shown in any other medium it would be refused classification.

Senator Schacht interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds) —Order! It would assist the debate if Senator Tierney could proceed.

Senator TIERNEY —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I realise this is embarrassing to the opposition, because they have no answer as to how you are going to enforce illegal material that currently exists on the Net.

No law that we try to enforce in this country is necessarily 100 per cent enforced. That does not mean we do not try. If something like breaking and entering is illegal, we try to enforce that. We do not succeed 100 per cent, but at least we try. I listened carefully to Senator Bishop's speech and I did not hear anything in it that would indicate any sort of enforcement provision against illegal material. It is a difficult and a changing medium in which to bring about any sort of enforcement. The Internet is expanding each year at 100 per cent at the moment—in other words, it is doubling its size each year. Its size is going up exponentially. The technology is changing rapidly.

Senator Lundy —It is a global medium. What makes you think you can control regulation?

Senator TIERNEY —Indeed, CSIRO evidence was very interesting and instructive in this regard. What the CSIRO wrote in a report was contradicted by their later verbal evidence to the committee, because within the six months the technology had changed again.

Senator Lundy —That is the biggest backflip I have ever heard.

Senator TIERNEY —No, it isn't, Senator. If you look back at the evidence we first received in 1993 before a Senate committee on this matter, also in 1995, in 1997 and in 1999, on all of those occasions there was evidence given by the industry saying, `Oh no, you can't do anything about this. It is technically impossible to do anything about this.'

Senator Lundy —A bit of fast repositioning there by Senator Alston to save a bit of face.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lundy, I understand that there are differing views on the subject under discussion but it would assist the debate if Senator Tierney could finish his speech.

Senator TIERNEY —Senator Lundy, you have 20 minutes later on. Could you just retain your babble for a moment. It is not having any effect on anything. We cannot hear what you are saying. You are being very disruptive and you will have 20 minutes a bit later on. I listened in silence—almost. I made one interjection on Senator Bishop but that was it. I was not agreeing with him but I am taking this opportunity now to respond to the points he raised.

As I was saying, we have looked at this matter at a number of hearings, and the technology has changed very rapidly over that time. What was not possible in 1993 is possible now. Things will change, particularly with filtering technologies, to become more sophisticated and more possible in future years. That is why the bill has two provisions at its centre. It is a very flexible bill, an organic bill, which will change with the nature of the industry. People do not have to take down material—I am talking about the Internet service providers here—if it is not technically feasible and if it is not commercially viable. They have a let-out clause which says, `If you cannot do it, we are not going to force you to do it. But if the technology becomes available and you are aware of these problems, then you do have to do it.' What is more reasonable than that? That is the key provision in the bill, and it fills the gap that is left by the alternatives that are proposed by the opposition and the industry.

What does the industry want to do with this? The industry is happy to develop an industry code of practice—and they should. That is a very important strategy. They should have standards, and they will have those ready by the end of the year. That is to be commended and is supported by this legislation. But they say that the answer is at the switch; the answer is at the other end. They say the answer is in the home and all you need to do is train and educate children properly in this, educate parents properly and use effective filtering technology at that end—such as NannyNet or SurfNet—and that will fix the problem. Well, maybe that is the case if you have a technically savvy household—and I live in one of those; my children are experts in this sort of technology. But there is not a high percentage of those in this country and there is not a high percentage of parents who are ahead of the kids on this matter. As a matter of fact, in the various age groups they find there is a big difference between the 25-plus, the 15 to 25s and the group under 15 years of age in terms of their familiarity with this material and how savvy they are. Therefore, end user control is only a partial solution. It should be encouraged. Money should be spent educating children and parents and there should be the technology for filtering, but it is nowhere near the total answer and people who say that are kidding themselves. As Senator Bishop mentioned, there are also international agreements. They are to be encouraged too. But, again, when you find islands in the Pacific heading up to make a lot of their foreign exchange out of this Internet illegal material, you wonder whether international agreements are going to be all that effective.

What we do need is a whole range of approaches. We need the industry to be more responsible in terms of its codes of practice. We need parents to be more responsible in terms of education and using screening technologies. We need more international agreements. But we also need the industry to be more responsible. It is not the Wild West; it is a very important medium. It will drive e-commerce. But governments have a responsibility to enforce the laws that exist in society on this medium as well as every other medium.