Senator HARRADINE (8:47 PM) —First of all, let me deal with that issue Senator Brown raised—the issue of Internet gambling. Senator Brown does not have to lecture the rest of us about that. We have been very concerned about that for some considerable time. In fact, I have had discus sions with persons from various states in Australia on that particular matter. It is even more important now that the recent announcement has been made by a particular group that they are getting into the online business. That is a matter that has been raised and it is under active consideration by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. Senator Brown should know that discussions have been taking place on the Select Committee on Information Technologies committee about the best form of words for the reference so that it will be effective. So there will be an inquiry by the information technologies committee.

People have been saying that it is very important for that committee to address a range of things. That committee has addressed a range of things, including the question of privacy. That is a matter on which the chair of the committee has prepared a draft chair's report. We have not been inactive in those matters, and I would hope that our meeting on Thursday will be able to settle on terms of reference for an Internet gambling reference.

At this hour of the night I am not going to examine some of the contributions that have been made here because I do not think they deserve a serious response, particularly that of Senator Schacht. I recommend that people read Senator Schacht's contribution to this debate.

Senator O'Chee —It was laughable.

Senator HARRADINE —It certainly was laughable. If somebody wants a public discourse on the principles of censorship or on other matters that he raised, then let us have a public discourse, a meeting of minds if that is possible, but to suggest that what is being proposed here, with the best will in the world, is going back to the Luddites or to the beginning of the printing press and so forth demeans debate in this chamber. My view is that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , if enacted, will be an improvement on the current largely unregulated environment and thus deserves support.

I hope people understand that, over many years, ministers from both sides of politics have been saying that something needs to be done about the Internet in respect of the types of prohibited material that are envisaged in this sort of legislation. I remember that when Mr Lavarch was Attorney-General he made a very strong statement as a result of the concerns that were expressed to him over a considerable period of time. Other ministers have also expressed concern about this matter. Nevertheless, there are suggestions that nothing should be done about it because nothing can be done about it. I think that is a defeatist attitude. While people are entitled to contribute to that attitude, it is strange indeed to give as a reason for doing nothing the fact that something is impossible, especially given advancements in filtering technologies.

There has been an extraordinary outcry from certain representatives of the Internet industry. Having read what was in the Financial Review of two Saturdays ago, I am disinclined to believe much that some of the people in the Internet industry say. It was unbelievable. I invite honourable senators to read it. If they believe what some people in the Internet industry say from here on in, they are very gullible indeed.

Given the number of announcements that have been made over a period of time, the Internet industry must have expected that something would be done by government. Not only that, but the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies and its predecessors have, since 1993, been having inquiries about this matter. They have made two or three reports. Surely the Internet industry cannot say that it was not warned or did not know that there was a need for regulation in the absence of its doing nothing about it. Because industry has not done anything about it, our homes are invaded by groups—including pimps and prostitutes—pushing their porn, causing parents a great deal of concern. They are exploiting the medium in order to make a huge amount of money. That is something that we should not ignore; nor, I believe, should the Internet organisations ignore it.

I have very great concerns about some aspects of the operational effectiveness of this measure, but I do believe that something needs to be done to prevent extremely violent material, pornographic material, illegal material and refused classification material being accessed in the home environment. We need to protect children. The bill falls considerably short of the recommendations made by our committee and its predecessors. Representatives of the Internet industry should have realised this, because they gave evidence to us. In 1995, in its first recommendation, our committee said:

It should be an offence to use a computer service to transmit, obtain possession of, demonstrate, advertise or request the transmission of material equivalent to RC, R and X categories.

That was essentially repeated in the first recommendation of June 1997. This measure before us does not follow the recommendations in respect of either the content to be regulated or the method of regulation.

I turn to a submission made to the committee's most recent inquiry. That submission states that the bill places too much reliance on the willingness of the Internet industry to self-regulate and on the capacity of the Australian Broadcasting Authority to provide timely and effective intervention if self-regulation fails. It also says that the stronger measures that are required include the establishment of a specific online content regulator that holds a direct relationship with Internet content and service providers, perhaps through a licensing system. I have a very strong view that such a licensing system would be more effective than that proposed under the legislation. As a condition of licensing, certain obligations could be imposed upon the industry and enforced.

Surely Internet service providers do have an obligation to their customers. For example, surely they ought to have an obligation to provide their customers with filtering technologies both at PC level and in the carriage infrastructure. It may well be argued—and I hope it is argued—by the minister that is the very thing that the government believes ought to be part of the code of practice provided for in the legislation. So it ought to be. If that is so, and if there is cooperation, maybe there will not be a need at some time in the future to impose licences and licence conditions on the industry.

There are a number of other things to be considered by the committee which have not been considered by some of those making contributions, not the least of which is that we have to have regard to the fact that you are going to have a convergence of technologies very soon. Broadcasting operators, for example, are expecting to integrate Internet and digital broadcasting technologies to deliver entertainment content into the home. Another example of convergence of broadcasting telecommunications and gambling can be seen in the nationwide promotion of `win a million dollars' television programs. The programs provide for viewers to enter the competition by dialling a 1900 number. Highly lucrative entry fees are imposed in the form of a charge on the telephone bill, which is then shared between the broadcaster and the telecommunications company.

There are a whole range of possibilities with the convergence of technologies, so I suppose the decision of the government in respect of prohibited content and potentially prohibited content to relate that to what is provided in at least one area—subscription television—is not such a bad idea. The government does have something of a non sequitur, if you like, in that with Australian provided R-rated material the bill requires an adult verification procedure, whereas that is not so for material coming from overseas. Frankly, something needs to be done about that so that we can move towards dealing with that problem.

I would also mention in passing that I am very concerned about the fact that there are a huge number of interactive violent computer games on the Internet. I think the OFLC must have a very good look at some of the very violent games they are allowing through and that would thus continue to be allowed in the Internet area.

At the end of the day, I will support this measure, but I have to say that parents should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the passage of this bill. It is an improvement. I congratulate the government for taking the initiative. It is not the way that I would necessarily have gone but the government, in its wisdom, has decided that this is the way to go. I repeat that I am going to support the measure. I do congratulate the minister and the government for trying to do something about a matter which is of considerable concern to a large number of persons in Australia, particularly parents.

Parents must be reminded that they and others responsible for children will need to exercise vigilance. They should be empowered to do so through a massive education campaign and through technological support. I agree with what Senator Mark Bishop said in respect of this. There needs to be a massive education campaign. Obviously the industry itself, in developing the codes of practice, should have that as a very high priority. If we were to have legislation, properly amended, plus a massive education campaign in conjunction with effective filtering technologies, it would ultimately ensure an environment in which computer use would grow. It would also put a damper on the exploiters of the Net.

Finally, I have to repeat what I have said on a number of occasions: the ABA may not be the appropriate institution to carry forward this particular measure. The ABA is a passive regulator. Again today the ABA said something disconcerting for the structure of our society. I doubt the news media got it wrong. I would be interested to see what the ABA chair has to say about a statement from an ABA spokesman which appeared in an article by Emma-Kate Symons in the Daily Telegraph today. I digress. The ABA really is on trial, and so is the Internet industry. I hope there is cooperation to see that this measure does work.