Mr BILLSON (1:47 PM) —I am continuing my earlier contribution to the second reading debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 . This is the bill that the coalition government has introduced to protect Australian children from some of the offensive and septic material that is on the Internet and to try to make sure that this extremely valuable information and educational tool is something we can all be confident and proud of as being a resource available to younger generations. It is an enormously powerful tool, bringing to households around the world, free of any tyranny of distance, access to material, insights, culture and information that should make a very positive contribution to the future for the young people who take the time to look through it.

In my previous contribution, I highlighted that, in amongst that enormous capacity that exists with that tool, there was something that I described as `cyber-septic'. I was drawing attention to the contribution by the member for Bonython and the position of the Labor Party, where glib remarks and words of concern were not backed up by any action. There was hand-wringing. People over there were saying, `We don't condone the sort of nonsense and filth that is on the Internet.'

Mr Lee interjecting—

Mr BILLSON —The member who is interjecting is reinforcing that position by saying that the Labor Party, again, on this issue, has no view. But the thing that has been missed by many, and particularly by those opposite, is what it is that we are trying to achieve. I went through some examples of my 18-month-old boy who, some time down the track, may have wanted to see what a giraffe looked like—an innocuous inquiry. We do not have giraffes in the electorate which I represent, on Melbourne's Mornington Peninsula. But, if you put an inquiry into any search engine, what do you find? You get pictures of young people engaged in sexual acts with animals. I cannot quite see how the vision of an information or educational tool is met by that test.

I notice that, when the facts are put on the table, Labor Party members opposite become silent, because this is the reality. In the information technology world, there are a lot of people who talk about the virtual this and the virtual that. These are the facts: when you put something into a search engine like Alta Vista—you make some inquiries about some activities you could engage in at school where there are some very reputable companies offering the sorts of games and educational things that I hope a lot of young people spend the time to get involved with—you come across all sorts of activity that I cannot even begin to describe in this place out of courtesy to those in this chamber and to those who are listening.

What sort of capacity for good, for education and for the development of young minds does this tool represent when an innocuous inquiry puts you smack bang—inadvertently—in amongst filth and smut? What confidence can parents have when their sons and daughters are at home in the study doing research and come across this sort of material? In this country, 20 per cent of households have access to the Internet. I would put it to you that many more households would more willingly get involved in the Internet if they could be more confident about its application and its benefits for the family.

I can give other examples—and I will not spend too much time on this. If you were in the devastating situation of being caught in an incident of sexual abuse or something of that kind and you did not know who to turn to because the people whom you trusted and relied on and whom you turned to for advice may have been involved, you think, `I will make an inquiry on the Internet to maybe get some advice about how to handle such a devastating incident.' What do you come up against? You are in a fragile frame of mind. Your whole world has been turned on its head because of some episode. You put in an inquiry to a search engine. What do you come up with? Do you get something helpful? Do you get some support for the trauma that is in your life? No. You get page after page about naked children, porno, rape, photos about things that have gone on, and snuff incidents in other parts of the world. I will not go into the specifics, but it is just disgusting. At a time when you need help and you turn to this information tool, that is what you get.

The bill which is before the parliament is trying to give the tool a chance. If you are faced with a situation of workplace harassment and you are trying to find out who you need to talk to, what people could be there to support you, if you put in an innocuous inquiry like `workplace harassment' to Alta Vista, a search engine that is available on the Internet, you struggle to find your way through some things about electronic devices and what you can do with them, about bosses that perpetuate harassment in their workplaces. And this is put forward as entertainment at a time when you are looking for advice and information.

What a waste of a resource that has an enormous capacity to bring good to this world. The bill before the parliament today is trying to give the resource a chance and to give Australian families and young people the confidence that this tool that is available, that can bring the whole world to your home, no matter where you live, can actually be used for some good things.

I will not give any more examples, but let me assure you that there are bucketloads of them. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution, these are nothing other than innocuous inquiries put into the search engine. It is not like people are going out to find this sort of smut. It is something that comes towards you through innocuous inquiries about legitimate concerns when you are searching for information or looking for some guidance. You might even be looking for some help. And that is what you are faced with.

Those who oppose what the government is doing do not like talking about that. They would rather live in this virtual world where they talk only about the capacity and the potential of the Internet. I do not doubt the capacity and the potential of the Internet. I do not doubt that it is there to deliver good for people around the world and for the citizens of Australia. That is its potential. Its reality falls some way short of that. For Australian families around the country, this government is trying to make sure that we are doing what we can as a nation to enable the Internet to get a bit closer to fulfilling that potential.

We do that in a number of ways. First, we do that by recognising that the Internet has a great capacity to improve people's lives and give them access to information which they may never otherwise have been able to obtain, in a time frame that eliminates the tyranny of distance and other access to information problems. It opens a whole new world of opportunity for far-flung communities throughout our country. It enables people to be put in cities around other parts of the world, to offer their product, to share their insights, to put their experience in front of others and to put an educational resource at the fingertips of young Australian boys and girls.

This bill, though, seeks to recognise the fact that the Internet can also be used to disseminate illegal and/or highly offensive material. I have just given you a sample of what the reality is at the moment. The bill establishes a mechanism to regulate the carriage of content over the Internet, keeping in mind that the government regulation can never, on its own, completely provide the perfect solution. I am not standing here before you today and saying that this will solve the problem entirely. It will not.

Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—

Mr BILLSON —Perhaps those opposite are saying that it will not solve it at all. I say to the ALP spokesman who is at the table: why don't you try to type in a very innocuous search inquiry and see what you come up with?

Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The member for Perth!

Mr BILLSON —There is nothing clever about the way in which an innocuous inquiry can inadvertently put you in that situation. The member for Perth is having to resort to interjection and cyber babble to try to mask the fact that the Labor Party is without a policy on this subject. Everybody agrees with the fact that something needs to be done. But our AWOL ALP—absent without leadership ALP—again cannot come up with anything other than to say that whatever anybody else says is wrong.

The computer industry is now starting to recognise that something has to happen. That is from a position where the computer industry was saying, `Leave it to us, we'll sort it out. We'll self-regulate.' But for those members in this place who have taken a keen interest in this subject, what did we get in the last few months of this campaign? We have had the computer industry telling us about all the things they can do to get around any useful step forward the government puts. So when you look to the industry itself, which is saying, `Give us a chance to self-regulate,' some within the industry do not want to know about it. They do not share the conviction and the view of those on this side of the parliament and the vast majority of Australians that something needs to be done, even if it is only to save this tool from itself.

When you look to the computer industry itself as a way of maybe providing part of the solution, some within the industry are not prepared to take up the challenge. But there are some who are. Those who are receive encouragement under this bill. You will hear some members opposite saying, `Look, it failed in the United States of America.' What they are misleading you about is that the US proposition was entirely different from what the Australian government is trying to do. In the United States, the Communications Decency Act was struck down by the United States Supreme Court. It was struck down for a reason: it was pre-emptive. It sought to prescribe in advance what was good and bad content. That is a hazardous task. Someone seeing me jogging might well describe that as bad content because I cannot keep up with the member for Curtin. The fact is that community standards change and evolve over time, and the US act tried to put in place a mechanism to prescribe what is good and what is bad.

Our act does not do that. Our proposal says, `You, the Australian people, signal what you find offensive.' We will apply the same sort of rules that we apply to what is on television, what is in movies and what is in magazines. It will be a complaint based situation where we then look at the individual circum stance against what are acceptable standards at that time and then take action. So this is entirely different from the United States proposition. Again, those opposite, AWOL Labor—absent without leadership Labor—do not want to confront the fact that this is a different proposition from that of the United States. They stand there hand-wringing on content contortions, basically saying, `We know that something needs to be done, we're not condoning the filth that's there.' Let me remind people in the parliament that this is filth generated out of innocuous inquiries. This is not somebody who is into peek and perve experiences on the Internet. This is an innocuous inquiry where you get page after page of content described in a way that would be unparliamentary. I cannot even go into the details of it. But that is what this proposition is.

I ask everyone in this House, as we enter question time, to again hear about how the coalition government is planning for the future and is implementing policy. It is such a vivid contrast to AWOL Labor—absent without leadership. This government is getting on with the job of addressing what is of concern to the community. We are doing what we can to support those in the Internet industry who want to make sure that this tool has the capacity to fulfil its potential. That potential is something that those opposite want to talk about in ignorance of the reality of the sort of content that is there at the moment. Clearly, there are some complicated issues. The tool here gives the Internet industry and consumers a chance to decide how they can deal with this problem. There is encouragement for everybody; it is a light-handed regulatory regime. But it is in vivid contrast to the mealy-mouthed words of the ALP, AWOL Labor—absent without leadership—who do not have a position on this subject at all.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Dunkley will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.