Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1744 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

on the issue of filtering for pornographic sites. If Mr Humphries reads this report -and I know I am just a Luddite, but I have read it-we could have a discussion about it.

What is totally clear -and I find this very interesting-is that this report involved four pornographic sites. There is a really big difference. I think about 12 million pages of pornographic material are available. The very big difference between that and sites for Internet gambling is that pornographic sites are not necessarily commercial. Pornographic material can be between individuals or whatever. But if you have an Internet gambling site, it is a commercial enterprise. You want to advertise it, you are not going to hide it. You are not going to have a lot of trouble finding those sites.

A number of filtering mechanisms have been developed. There were problems with the pornography sites because, as I said, there are so many and they are hard to track. The filtering products that are available include keyword filtering, which is using words; packet filtering, which is basically where you look at the content which is delivered over the Internet in packets of information; and URL filtering-that is a really quite interesting one because URL filtering, which is the most common form, basically involves the filtering of a site based on its URL, which is its address. This report was not as condemning of the possibility of URL filtering.

People are telling us that it is impossible, that there needs to be a lot more work done. In fact, this report says that itself. This report says:

So there is work to be done here. If people are seriously interested in having a ban and there is enthusiasm and commitment, then I think the technology would probably be able to be developed. So obviously a whole lot of issues needs to be addressed. I imagine the federal government would be very interested in exploring those possibilities if they are wanting to have a ban.

Mr Humphries also seemed to be of the view that I was saying, "Let's leave it unregulated," and I think that is what you call getting "Gary-ed". What I am asking for is some understanding of the consequences of this. The Senate committee requested the moratorium to give time for a national approach and a considered look at how we can do all that is possible to ensure a consistent, quality response to issues of privacy and secure electronic pathways and to obtain wins when they occur, which, by the way, is not very often. Those things are obviously useful for gamblers, who want to know their privacy is secured and who want to know they can win. But we know most people do not win and we know that, because of the nature of the Internet, problem gamblers will have a choice.

I do understand the Internet, Mr Humphries. I imagine that Mr Humphries is listening to this debate in his office upstairs. As someone who understands the Internet-and Mr Humphries just explained this to me anyway-I know that a problem gambler would not want to go with a licensed provider in the ACT because there have been too many barriers set up. The gambler can go offshore. There is no way with the Internet as it is

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .