Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill 2007 
|
| Tuesday, 04 December 2007 | ||||||
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [8.31 p.m.]: Like the member for Wyong, I am concerned about the protection of our children. I am a father of three children. Just over 12 months ago, I found my 10-year-old daughter talking on the Internet to someone whom we did not know. That sparked my concern about the impact of the Internet on children in terms of cyber safety. Who is out there preying on children of all ages? In order to address this problem we tried to be constructive and brought together some experts to discuss the problem and make recommendations on constructive solutions. On 9 August 2007 we held a forum with representatives principally from MySpace, Bravehearts and the Inspire Foundation. We requested a police officer to attend but, unfortunately, he was unable to do so, but Catherine Allen, from the Police Ministry, attended. The forum participants discussed a range of issues and the outcomes are worth noting. The public perceive the online world as less safe than the physical world, even though 70 per cent of paedophilia occurs in the home. The younger generation tends to use the Internet to strengthen relationships in the physical world rather than to make new friends. However, the danger is that they perceive the Internet as a private space, whereas it is very public. Media scaremongering makes children more vulnerable to predators because parents may ban Internet use as a result. As legislators, and leaders in the community, we have a responsibility to make sure that we do not overdramatise some of the impacts. If we banned the Internet then children would be less likely to talk openly with their parents, should an event happen such as I discovered with my daughter talking to someone she did not know. We also discovered that predators are more likely to groom children on fast-moving chat-rooms rather than on corporate-owned social networking sites where the data is monitored and can be preserved. Education campaigns need to target those most at risk and make them aware of the range of information and events available to protect our children. I commend the Iemma Government and the Minister for taking up this issue. The first recommendation of the forum was that we make it mandatory for convicted sex offenders to register their active email account and associated Internet activities, such as those prescribed in the bill. We need to provide limitations on convicted sexual offenders and stop them from using the Internet, because right now there is no such provision. Operators of social networking websites would share the data with police and would alert the police when they find a common match and then have the offender's profile removed. I have a concern—and I am sure the Minister will address my concern in reply—that on 10 August 2007 the Minister announced the email initiative as his. A journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald was contacted by one of the Minister's policy advisers 10 minutes after the forum was closed and asked if he would like an exclusive on an announcement by the Police Minister about taking on the email address initiative. I said at the outset that this matter is not about politics. Protection of children must rise above political issues. It was a lesson to me about the way the Government deals with opportunistic politics in relation to these matters. We would have appreciated some acknowledgement from the Minister that the initiative actually came from a forum organised by the Opposition—by the member for Epping and me. We extended the invitation of working collaboratively together above politics in relation to this issue. Protection of children has to be first and foremost. The Opposition believes this issue should go further. At the forum we said the Government should conduct random computer checks for convicted sex offenders. Despite the registration of convicted sex offenders' Internet addresses, currently nothing prescribes random computer checks to ascertain what they might be up to. We have the start of a net but the Opposition believes the net should be increased. We also think that the Government needs to conduct more research into the online behaviour of children and predators so intervention can be better targeted. We are in a position where it is not just about prohibition. Is there an opportunity for the State Government to look at ways of intervening earlier in children's lives and make a difference in the longer term? We need to find out who is most vulnerable and at risk and use the Internet to explore those opportunities. Studies are emerging from both the United Kingdom and the United States that can help in the prevention of child abuse and intervention to help victims before any tragic consequences arise. The bill is a great step forward in the long battle to protect our children and we welcome it. The Opposition has been moving in this direction for some time and we encourage the Government to take it that step further. Add to:          Write Comment
|
||||||
