Senator FERRIS (8:27 PM) —I hardly know where to start tonight. We have had the most extraordinary and colourful contributions. They almost belie description. We had Senator Schacht mentioning Tiananmen Square and the tragedies of that, Luddites and political thuggery. He was suggesting that we were stepping back into the medieval times. We had Senator Margetts invoking King Canute. I can only suggest that if Senator Margetts had come to any of the hearings she might have been a little more informed about some of the questions she raised and some of the answers that lay in the evidence. We had Senator Lundy discussing the total unworkability and technically flawed nature of the bill, invoking Iran, China and Burma, and calling it a disaster and totally unworkable.

If the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 is all of these things, why are those opposite so strongly opposed to it? If it is not going to work, it is technically flawed and its intention cannot be fully delivered—as Senator Lundy said tonight—why are they so energetically opposed to it? Why did Senator Lundy, on her email, invoke cooking up a cyberstorm? If this bill is undeliverable in its current form, why was all this energy invoked tonight and on other occasions over the last few weeks to suggest that the bill is going to fail?

This legislation has been introduced as a result of years of consultation between governments and the community—going back to the previous government—on the best way to manage the regulation of this developing technology. On this occasion we are talking about the best way to ensure that the Internet—I agree that it is probably the most revolutionary piece of new technology since the invention of the telephone—is appropriately regulated so that all users are protected from some of the more obnoxious aspects of the content available on the Internet.

Let us reconsider and reflect for a moment on the evidence that was presented by the Eros Foundation. What Fiona Patten told the committee was that she, along with many others in the community, did not believe that what is regulated offline should not be regu lated online. When we are invoking evidence about doom, gloom, disaster and the sky falling in, it is important to take into account that some social libertarians gave evidence to the committee which in principle agreed with the position that the government is trying to take here—to protect families from some of the more obnoxious aspects of the Internet.

There are very few families in Australia who would disagree. Young Media Australia, which claims to speak for hundreds of families, agreed very strongly. Despite some of the quite fanciful contributions already made today about the way in which the Internet will be damaged irreparably by this legislation, there is absolutely no doubt that Australian families are very reassured about the intent of this legislation. I wish that Senator Schacht had been around when the material was being published about the home pages of those two young murderers at the Littleton High School. Any parent who knew that their child had access to those two home pages would feel justifiably reassured by the knowledge that, in this country when this bill is passed, they need not worry about their children's access to the Internet.

This bill will enable the online environment to operate as a three-way partnership between parents, government and industry, with parents taking a reasonable degree of responsibility and the industry doing the same, against an appropriate legislative framework. Most importantly, this legislation provides clear guidelines for the protection of all Australians from illegal and highly offensive material.

As chair of the Select Committee on Information Technologies which took evidence on this legislation, I had absolutely no doubt that emerging technologies can be accommodated within this framework. As witnesses explained to committee members, what is not possible today may well be possible tomorrow. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee reflected the vigorous debate which has been taking place within the Internet community about this legislation. That opposition has been well canvassed tonight and due to time constraints I do not propose to traverse it again here.

One of the points that has been made tonight repeatedly by previous speakers has been the suggestion that parents should be responsible for the regulation of Internet access for children. Goodness me, I know many families whose children aged five to seven have access to a computer and are highly computer literate but where their parents have not yet mastered that skill. It is unreasonable to suggest that those parents should take total responsibility for what their child watches, whether they are five, seven, 10 or 15, when they themselves have not yet had the opportunity to master that skill. It totally overlooks the intent of this legislation.

There is little doubt that the bill covers a dynamic area of community development and as it continues to evolve the government may need to revisit this legislation. But it is a genuine attempt to recognise that this technology cannot continue to operate in its currently unregulated form and that the legislation we are debating today could well form the basis for complementary legislation in other countries where communities are equally concerned about what can be so easily accessed on the Net today in Australia.