Parental, not governmental, guidance recommended.
In the case of an 11 year old boy being suspended from his primary school for two days after showing fellow students pornographic images he downloaded onto his internet-capable mobile phoe, I don't think it's the kid who needs the discipline.
I'm not quite sure what planet parents live on nowdays, but I managed to get through all thirteen of my years at school without the help of a mobile phone. I can think of
one occasion where a mobile would have been handy, and that was when I arrived at the railway/pedestrian bridge over the Macleay river on my usual route home only to see treetops poking out of floodwater on the opposite side.
Maybe that kid's parents thought it was a good idea to buy him a mobile for safety reasons, or maybe it was just because all his friends had one, but whatever the reason, giving him a phone he can hook up to the internet unsupervised is just asking for trouble.
Kids love finding out about 'forbidden' things, and nudity and porn are two of those things. Personally I don't think it's a whole lot different to the time my brother and our young next door neighbour found a bunch of his Dad's porn magazines under some floorboards in the neighbour's garage. I must have been about 10 or 11 at the time, and even though I remember tut-tutting at them for taking the magazines I was still very keen to have a look!
Of course Kim Beazley has seen this incident as another opportunity to plug his
'porn ban' for ISPs:
Labor Leader Kim Beazley weighed into the debate, saying the federal government could do more to help parents curtail the growing online threat by pushing for mandatory internet filters.
"I certainly think there is something the government can do," he told reporters.
"They can adopt our policy of putting in place filters at the point of providers, not at the point of your home computer.
"That's what the government should do and then the kiddy would not be turning up with those sorts of things on his phone or for that matter on his laptop."
That is absolutely dead wrong. Responsibility in this case lies with parents. When Gam and I have kids I may not have a problem if they want to look through my old Playboy magazines, but I will have a responsibility to do my best to ensure they aren't freely available to other peoples' children. It's not the government's responsibility to ban internet porn any more than it's their responsibility to ban Playboy, regardless of how many parents have objections to their children seeing such material.
No parent needs to buy their primary school-aged child an internet-enabled mobile phone any more than they need to buy that kid a car. There's a time and a place for such things, and it's not the school playground.