Mr NEVILLE (6:09 PM) —The purpose of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 is to establish a framework for the regulation of the content of online services, as indeed the bill says. The legislation has three major objectives: to provide a means for addressing complaints about certain Internet content, to restrict access to certain Internet content that is likely to cause offence to any reasonable adult and to protect children from exposure to Internet content that is unsuitable for children.

Twenty-one per cent of Australian homes are currently accessing the Internet. The number is expected to climb significantly as the medium becomes the mainstay of home entertainment systems. As I looked at these figures, I noticed that 27.3 per cent of that 21 per cent—over a quarter—are couples with children. Even in this early stage of the development of the medium we have a lot of children exposed to the Internet. We also know that in schools computer technology, including in many instances the Internet, is becoming a way of life.

It is not as though it is something that children are ignorant of and learn on the knees of their parents, as they might have in the old days. They probably come home more adept at handling the home computer and the Internet than some of their parents. Another indication of this is that for the previous 12 months to November 1998, 62 per cent of young people between 18 and 24 accessed the Internet. We can extrapolate from that, and from this educational trend I was just talking about, that there is a large group of technically adept young people who have access to the Internet. For any government to step away from regulating it on the basis that it is too hard or that some overseas R-rated material might slip through is just too dreadful to contemplate.

The introduction of digital television and technological conversion means that in the not too distant future people will be able to access the Internet on their television using their remote control unit and their set top box. So a medium that is already accessible will become even more so. I point out that if it is on the television screen itself it will be less easy to regulate it in the home environment, especially if the children are more adept than their parents in handling the medium. Therefore, there is a need for a gatekeeper.

There has been some rather loud clamouring against this rather intelligent and far-sighted government measure by members opposite, who shamelessly, once again, take the elitist minority position. It is very easy to become superior and say that it is a new medium and that we do not need all these controls. However, it is another thing to try to pull it back once it is rampantly out there in the community.

The member for Batman criticised a number of aspects of this legislation in a publication that he churned out as part of his party's litany of books. There has been criticism on the grounds that the government seeks to kill the Net because the legislation is somehow technically impossible to implement. We willingly acknowledge that there are technical difficulties with blocking all material hosted on overseas sites. However, where it is feasible, it should be done. Just because no other country has tackled this issue does not mean that we should sit back and allow the Internet to become a conduit into our homes for the filth of the world.

That may sound like a strange, fairly extreme statement. However, I remember listening one night to David Hill, the then general manager of the ABC, describing how Australia had accepted various forms of electronic technology. He mentioned black and white television; colour television, where we were better than most of the world; video recorders; and mobile phones. He went through all the technologies. There is no doubt that we will probably embrace the Internet more readily than most other countries.

Also, as a nation continent, Australia has some abilities that may not be available to other countries which are side by side in Europe, America and so on. We have a unique opportunity to set a standard for the world rather than to step away from our responsibilities. In effect, we are taking an international leadership position, and the success of this endeavour could see other countries follow our lead. I went just the other day to a meeting of the Singapore-Australia Friendship Group, and it was interesting to see politicians from the Singapore parliament come here to see how we run this parliament and its various activities, how we electronically keep in touch with each other and how we use the various systems within the building. So we are recognised as being a leader in these sorts of things. There is every possibility that we will be looked to as a leader—if not throughout the world then certainly in our region—to set a standard in such matters.

It is not acceptable to make no attempt at all. That is the easy option, the option that all too often we have tended to take in the past. The bill is not designed to censor the Net, to restrict freedom of speech, to force web sites offshore or to kill the Net, as some of the critics and some elements of the media have claimed in recent weeks. Nor is it designed to invade the rights of citizens. In fact, in many respects it enhances the rights of citizens. The bill does not seek to extend Australian community standards to other countries, nor does it seek to remove the responsibility of parents or guardians to monitor their children's use of the Net to the extent that they can.

The Australian community has never accepted the proposition that, because parents have a primary responsibility for their children, government should step aside from the responsibility to create a safer physical and social environment for them. We have never stepped away from that responsibility. For example, we do not accept dangerous toys. From time to time we hear about dangerous toys slipping through the barriers. Kids get hurt by toys. We seek to eliminate those and to use the information we get at that stage to make sure, as more toys come into the country, that there are fewer and fewer dangerous ones.

We do not accept, for example, because some flammable clothing sometimes sneaks into Australia that it is all too hard, that we should allow everyone to sell flammable clothing and that we should not examine imports for flammable clothing. No doubt some things do get past. How horrified we all are when a child's nightdress or something goes up beside a heater. But it is not as if the government has not made some intelligent efforts to make sure that they do not get in.

We do not let our kids read unsavoury material. We do not just take it for granted. Some kids get access to pornographic material or to adult magazines—albeit ones that are quite legitimate. We know that for a fact, and I made a point of this when we had the so-called Cleo safe sex guide in the previous parliament. We did not accept the proposition then that it was necessarily safe. We knew that young girls of 12, 13 and 14 read Cleo and would be exposed to that material. It was interesting that the minister at the time, even though a review said that they did not see anything terribly wrong with it, on reflection decided to have the remaining copies of that guide destroyed.

We do not accept that our kids should have access to adult films. In fact, I was the supervisor of a chain of theatres once, and we did not ever accept that you should let kids under 18 into adult films in the theatre. But some of them got past us. Of course they did. I remember one day I pulled up this girl. She had beautiful little pigtails and blonde hair, and she looked every bit of 15 or 16. I said, `You are not seriously expecting me admit you to this film.' `Oh,' she said, `Mr Neville, my name is Mary-Lou so-and-so. I am 24 years of age. I have a Bachelor of Arts and I am studying for my doctorate.' So sometimes they fool you. In the same way that I thought she was underage, I am sure there are other more sophisticated kids who would have been 15 or 16 who were getting in. But that does not mean we did not make the effort to stop it. The same goes for R-certificated videos. We do not allow kids to take them out of video stores; we insist that they are taken by adults. No doubt some of those kids send their mates in and look at those videos, but we do not abrogate our position because it is difficult.

The fact that some aspects of the bill are, in the opinion of some in the industry, unlikely to succeed is not argument enough for the government to ignore this issue and to allow the Internet to go unchecked as a conduit to the world's unsavoury material for our children. The member for Moreton gave us a very interesting example—I think it was in the House; if not, it was certainly in the confines of the building—of where his eight- or nine-year-old daughter was using the Internet and looked up `spice girls'. Three of the four pages that she looked up on `spice girls' were perfectly acceptable. The fourth one outraged even the member for Moreton. So there are instances where the stuff needs checking. I do not think we should resile from it just because it is difficult.

The Internet is quite unlike any previous medium insofar as children are being introduced to computer skills at a very early age and accessing the electronic media in a way never before available. As I said before, most kids are probably more adept at using the medium than their parents. As an educative tool it is unsurpassed. It is also, if unchecked, an open gateway to exploitation of the young. That is the point I really want to make. That in itself, even if we forget every other aspect of this whole debate, should be a motivation for us to do something about it.

The bill does not completely clean the Net. The government has never claimed that it would. No law can be 100 per cent effective, whether it is preventing road deaths, workplace accidents, drug taking or, as I illustrated before, allowing flammable clothing or something like that into this country. It will never be totally effective. But the fact that you make an effort and that you do remove dangerous material in whatever field you are dealing makes the environment both socially and physically safer. The bill is a new law for the new problems of a new age in a new industry, and the government will remain vigilant to ensure that the law is as effective as possible.

We have three measures that we intend to implement that are sensible and are not draconian. We propose appropriate procedures for this industry to prevent access to objectionable material or illegal sites. Filtering technologies and education form part of the government's response. We take seriously our responsibility to prevent illegal and offensive material on television. Material rated X is not permitted on television. Material rated R can be shown on television only by subscription if there are strict adult verification procedures. That being the case, why should we not be looking to apply similar methods with similar rigour to the Internet?

The bill ensures that the content classification system used and accepted by Australians for decades, albeit that the system that rates movies and videos has been slightly modified over recent times—for example: G, PG, MA or R—is extended to include content on Internet sites. The government does not invent these standards or ratings. They are the products of an extensive process of community consultation, and I am at a loss to understand why anyone would be horrified at an extension of this logic to the Internet system. That is the first reason.

The second reason is that the bill sets up a system so that Australians can complain to the Australian Broadcasting Authority about any illegal or highly offensive material that is on an Australian site and establishes a system to ensure that material is removed. I would have thought that, if the ABA were responding to a complaint made by an Australian citizen, it would not be unreasonable for the material to be removed—that is, assuming a prima facie case has been established.

Thirdly, the bill requires that the Internet industry should develop its own code of practice which, in part, will set out the technically feasible and commercially viable steps that the industry can take to prevent or restrict access to illegal or highly offensive material on overseas sites. Frankly, I believe that, if the Australian industry is serious, these measures in themselves may well be sufficient.

In short, the bill forms a comprehensive package to protect children that involves parents, which is their time-honoured responsibility; the community, by not denying them the right to object; the industry, by exercising their own standards of conduct and practice; and the legislation, the responsibility of government to a new form of media in a new age. The government is not coming from some position of knee-jerk reaction but from a consistent position of responsibility.

Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Martyn Evans's amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. [6.31 p.m.]

(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

——

Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

——

Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.