Australia is already a world leader in protecting kids from pornography

What a pity there isn't a magic wand that we could wave over the Internet to rid it of pornography. We could be sure then that nobody, especially children, would be able to see it. This includes, of course, the particularly revolting material that investigating officers for the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) refer to the police.

Instead of a magic wand, it is necessary to rely on a raft of measures against undesirable Internet content. These include co-regulatory codes, officially approved software filters, a centre to receive complaints about content, various sanctions against the providers of prohibited content, and of course, education - of parents as well as children - about Internet content and use.

The ABA deals with all complaints about offensive Internet content. And it has the power to order that offending sites be taken down, or if overseas, ensuring - in such a way that the offenders are not forewarned - that foreign police can prosecute them.

The weakest link in this chain is undoubtedly the apparent unwillingness, or perhaps inability, of some foreign governments to enforce their own criminal law - or alternatively, to implement what probably ought to be their criminal law.

A report has just been released by the Australia Institute that relies heavily on a telephone poll of a relatively small sample of Australian youths. The report found that a large percentage have accessed pornographic sites, particularly boys. The authors fear the results may understate the problem (although it could just as easily be overstated, especially among young male Internet users). In any event, they are right to bring this trend to our attention. There are some sites which no one - especially not children - should be allowed to see. There are others which only adults ought to be able to access.

Given that Australia acting alone cannot force any foreign police force to do its job, is there something more that could be done? The Australia Institute thinks so. But in proposing a solution, the Institute makes the gratuitous and inaccurate observation that Australia's current form of co-regulation is virtually useless. They seem not to realise at all how difficult it was to get even to this point, and that Australia is in fact a pioneer in dealing with this problem.

There is also the entirely unsupported suggestion in the report that the ABA is more interested in promoting the Internet than in protecting children. This is not only untrue: it is offensive. The ABA's principal concern is the protection of children, which was clearly the intention of Parliament in giving responsibility for Internet content regulation to the ABA.

The ABA is engaged with organisations, both in Australia and overseas, to protect children. It works through INHOPE, an international network of hotlines that deals primarily with reports about child pornography available on the Internet. This network of 17 accredited hotlines links 15 different countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. Some INHOPE hotlines are government based, like the ABA; others such as the Internet Watch Foundation (UK) are industry initiatives; while there are also community based and privately sponsored hotlines like Cybertipline (USA). In a six-month period, INHOPE investigated approximately35,000 reports of child pornography online.

Through consultation with both the industry and the public, the ABA has developed and registered codes of practice to protect the public interest. It reports on the effectiveness of filters and publishes these on its website, ensuring that approved filters are made available at cost.

The ABA has also developed a website, http://www.cybersmartkids.com.au, that provides information for families to help ensure their children's Internet use is safe and enjoyable. A complementary range of brochures, available online and in hard copy, includes general Internet safety tips, advice on choosing a filter, tips for dealing with spam, and tips for safe use of online chat applications. The site features a young person's guide to using the Internet, encouraging children to have fun and explore 'cool' sites, but asking them to remember to be "cybersmart". This would include, for instance, telling a parent or another trusted adult if they encounter "upsetting language, nasty pictures or something scary" on the Internet. The site also features important tips for parents on safe ways to enjoy the best of the Internet, while protecting children from the worst. Teachers can use the lesson plan, online teaching resources and homework tips to help kids be cybersmart.

The ABA has also entered into formal relationships with federal and state police to ensure the speedy transmission of sensitive information on foreign sites so that, through Interpol and other avenues, local authorities can act.

Above all, the ABA warns against complacency, which can come through too much reliance on software filters - an imperfect tool - and it emphasises the continuing need for parental involvement and supervision of young Internet users.

The Australia Institute thinks Australia should do more. Contrary to the views of almost all international experts, the Institute thinks it has found the elusive magic wand: mandatory filtering, but with a provision to allow adults to opt out. At present, what exists under our unique co-regulatory system is a code that requires Internet Service Providers to offer all filters at cost price to their subscribers. The filters' effectiveness is tested for the ABA and the test results are made public. No other country, at least among the democracies, has even this much.

Still, the Institute may have a point and its argument should be given due consideration. For mandatory filtering to be the magic wand, subscribers would, of course, have to pay in some way. For example, they might have to accept slower download times. They would also have to put up with the fact that filters often overshoot, blocking legitimate requests. To illustrate, a medical inquiry could result in sites about the human body being blocked.

Then there is the problem that filters accidentally let through some sites that are clearly pornographic. The Australia Institute knows this - they included the ABA research that discloses this fact in their report. Perhaps the greatest danger of mandatory filtering is that it will inevitably make some parents complacent and think the filters are a magic wand.

The Commonwealth Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts is doing its own research on filters, as the ABA has done. This will ensure that Parliament, and indeed all of us, are better informed on this question.

Let us not forget that the introduction of the Australian system required a considerable degree of persistence, indeed courage, on the part of both the government and the Parliament. Some of the warnings about the consequences - to say nothing of the ridicule - which appeared in the media both here and overseas ought to be revisited. If they were, quite a few people would be embarrassed. One commentator even called Australia a global village idiot!

The opposition of the free-speech lobby, especially in the US, was ferocious. That lobby seems to have persuaded the American courts to favour pornographers whenever the Administration and the Congress have tried to act against them but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to dissuade the Australian Parliament from introducing our unique co-regulatory system. This is the most rigorous system in any of the democracies - and it has not had any of the deleterious effects on free speech predicted by critics. Nor have excessive costs been levied on Australian subscribers, nor has the Internet been slowed down.

In any event, Dr Hamilton and the Institute will soon have the opportunity to have their proposal discussed, when the government tables its review in Parliament for debate. Until then, we must keep an open mind on this. Is it the magic wand, which would instantly solve all of our difficulties? If not, would it be, on balance, a significant advance on what we have? If it is either of these, then it can be expected that the government and the Parliament will, acting in the public interest, react favourably. At this point, no other democracy, nor any of the international expert bodies, proposes mandatory filtering. However, this does not mean Australia should not proceed in that direction. After all, this country is already a pioneer in dealing with the extremely serious problem of regulating Internet content.