Australia is already a world leader in protecting kids from pornography

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.