Internet Content - parent education is the
key
Senate Adjournment Speech
19 March 2003
The recent release of the Australia Institute's sensational
report Youth and pornography in Australia: evidence on the extent of exposure
and likely effects has re-ignited public debate about under-age access to
sexually explicit material on the Internet. This issue is not new, even though
many parents—just as the co-author of this report, Clive Hamilton, said on
radio—are experiencing the Internet through their children's eyes for the very
first time.
In fact it was a debate that we had here in this chamber
nearly four years ago when the coalition introduced the online services bill.
This legislation sought to do a number of things. It decreed online content as
analogous to video content for the purposes of classification.
It created a framework for an industry code of practice
which included ISPs being required to provide filter downloads on their web
site. It also established a take down regime for sexually explicit web sites
without age protection on servers in Australia administered by the Australian
Broadcasting Authority. The legislation also established
NetAlert, an independent body designed to host the hotline for complaints
and provide information to net users about filters.
At the time, the coalition argued that this would protect
Internet users from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit material. However,
there was a mismatch between the rhetoric and the reality of the government's
regime. Because of the open, global nature of the Internet, it is not possible
to unequivocally block certain types of content.
It was only through the cooperation of the Internet
Industry Association that a code of practice that gave some credibility to the
government's regime was established. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online
Services) Act is largely symbolic and, I think, a lazy attempt to mislead
Australians into believing that the coalition actually cared about and had met
the objective of helping protect Australian citizens, especially children, from
illegal and highly offensive material.
This is not the case and there has been little effort to
empower parents with the knowledge and confidence they require. As a result,
suspicion and concern about their children's use of the Internet has grown in
the minds of many parents. At the time of debating this act, Labor argued that
the concept of legislating to require filter use at ISP level was not
technically feasible. This is still the case. Whilst filters have improved,
their use at the desktop is still the most effective and gives parents the
greatest control. We argued then, and argue still, that the best ways to help
parents make the right decisions for their children are to provide the resources
to educate them about the risks of some online content and make the tools for
managing Internet content at the desktop at home accessible.
I should say that there are equally powerful arguments for
educating parents about the vast merits of Internet usage, but, unfortunately,
that angle has never featured strongly in the coalition's agenda; rather, their
approach is reactionary. The coalition choose to characterise the Internet as a
threat, not as an opportunity.
So when this latest Australia Institute report was
published, I was disturbed by the tendency for some to immediately succumb to
the sensationalism and hyperbole without a thought for the facts as they have
been established in previous debates in this place, in Senate inquiries and in a
number of reputable studies.
Independent experts continue to expose flaws in filter
technology. A 2001 CSIRO report found that, despite improvements in filtering
technology over the years, there is no filter that is 100 per cent effective in
keeping out all undesirable material without simultaneously blocking acceptable
content.
Even the regulatory body responsible, the Australian
Broadcasting Authority, acknowledged in relation to filter technology that none
of the products currently available meet users' expectations with regard to
blocking accuracy, useability and system performance. Therefore, the suggestion
that the entire Internet should be filtered is unrealistic and inappropriate.
Unfortunately, such a short memory regarding the debate in
1999 about Internet content has led the coalition to already offer support for
greater censorship by actively considering proposals for unworkable, quick fixes
that involve filtering the Internet at the ISP level.
Let us be clear about this: this would mean that all
Internet content available to Australians would be prefiltered by ISPs in
accordance with the standards of censorship preferred by the coalition
government. This ridiculous proposition is made even more absurd when the
weaknesses of filtering technology at this level effectively ensure that it
would not work anyway.
For parents unfamiliar with the Internet, all this seems
like intimidating and impenetrable jargon. I have a great deal of sympathy for
people in that position. The role for the government is to remove this barrier
to parental involvement with their children's use of the Internet. This can be
done through education, through raising parents' awareness, information sharing
about solutions, helping parents develop practical Internet skills and
encouraging them to be involved in the Internet in the home.
Unfortunately, the coalition has quite shamefully
underfunded the very organisation they set up to educate parents about safe
Internet surfing. NetAlert has been staffed by the
coalition over the past three years, receiving over $1.5 million per year to
educate the rapidly growing Internet using community in Australia. Following a
very shaky start, most of this money has been spent on shallow `brand building'
and promotion. The real work is yet to be done.
The NetAlert Executive Director,
Alan Tayt, has had to go cap in hand to the minister for $10 million that he
estimates will be needed to do the job effectively over the next three years.
Without a coalition commitment, NetAlert could be wound
up in the next month, leaving parents high and dry in their efforts to protect
their kids.
The coalition has also dragged its feet combating spam
email, a major source of unwanted Internet content that could lead to
inadvertent exposure to sexually explicit material by under 18-year-olds. Last
year the minister finally acknowledged that spam was of concern because it might
contain illegal or offensive material. He said he would produce a report on spam
`to be made public by midyear'—that was last year, 2002.
Yet aside from an incredibly light touch `interim paper'
there has been nothing, not a peep. Meanwhile Labor has already put out a
discussion paper on spam and is examining policy options for achieving a
solution to this problem. Finally, the coalition has still not handed down their
promised evaluation of the online services act, which the minister said in this
place on 24 May 1999 would be due on 1 January 2003.
On the other hand, Labor has a constructive alternative to
the coalition's lazy hands-off approach. This is to make a genuine effort to
assist parents, to help them educate themselves and empower them to manage their
Internet content. Parents do not have to be rocket scientists or computer
experts to protect their families. It is their choice. With a little assistance
parents can learn how to use Internet and email filters to screen out a great
deal of unwanted content.
Despite the coalition's inaction, Internet service
providers have a responsibility under the industry code of practice to provide
these filters and information about their use. The industry has also embarked
upon a number of initiatives designed to better identify child-friendly content.
Of course, deficiencies in filters mean that parents cannot abdicate their
responsibility to monitor their children's Internet use, but there are other
simple steps they can take.
For example, parents can ensure their kids conduct Internet
searches on `white list' search sites like LookSmart.com or Yahooligans.com,
which vet their searchable content. The former, LookSmart, an Australian
company, pops up a warning if search results may contain unsuitable content,
while the latter, Yahooligans, only searches through sites previously determined
by the company to be suitable for children.
Parents can also take commonsense steps such as putting a
computer in a well used area of the house and providing guidance to children
about what they view, just as happens with television. Parents have the right
and the responsibility to decide what their child views. The role of government
is to provide as much assistance as possible to help achieve this, not to make
these decisions for them.
If one thing is to be learnt from the failure of the
existing regulatory regime it is that ad hoc censorship and high-level filtering
are not the answer. It is about time the coalition government concentrated on
effective, realistic solutions and took a serious interest in helping parents to
combat this problem.
