Mandatory reporting is designed to keep children safe, but medical professionals are asking whether it could prevent potential sex offenders receiving early treatment before they create victims.

Forensic psychologist Luke Broomhall says that of the child sex offenders referred to him for treatment, the vast majority are sent by the courts.

He said there was a big misconception that all child sex offenders were irretrievably broken: in other words, once a child sex offender, always a child sex offender.

"It's important to look at the breadth of people who fall into these classifications," Mr Broomhall said.

"Some people who commit very serious acts of paedophilia against very young children the rehabilitation rates aren't showing fantastic results ... there's still a lot of work to do.

"But with people at the lower end of the spectrum, people who download child exploitation material of older teenagers, there are good treatment outcomes and lower rates of recidivism."

Treatment regimes used cognitive behavioural therapies working to change the inappropriate objects of people's desire, he said.

It was crucial that offenders accept their actions were not a victimless crime, he said: children could not by definition give consent and were always damaged by abuse.

Psychologist Luke Broomhall says people who seek early treatment can work to change their behaviour. ( ABC News )

Mr Broomhall said there was no one-size-fits-all approach.

"Treatment for someone who downloads child exploitation material only is going to be different to someone who engages in contact sexual offending, because the pathways to offending are cognitively and behaviourally different for each of those two groups," he said.

He said the longer someone had offended, the harder it could be to change the entrenched behaviour.

It is the one of the major reasons why the forensic psychologist thinks there is a need to target people before they offend.

"I think it is crucial that those services are provided in society," he said.

"The issue that we have certainly in a lot of the cases I see is that people don't come forward for treatment for their sexual impulses until after they have offended ... by then it's too late the damage has already been caused."

Offenders 'selfish' with 'little control'

The long-serving head of the SA's parole board Frances Nelson has come into contact with hundreds of child sex offenders.

"I think they are often very selfish people, who choose not to control their impulses," Ms Nelson said.

Frances Nelson believes it is far better to prevent a crime with early treatment. ( ABC News )

"A lot of them are in denial ... thinking there's nothing wrong with it, and that presents a real problem.

"They are almost certain to reoffend if they have that view."

Ms Nelson agreed with Mr Broomhall that there was merit in early intervention.

"[If people] voluntarily seek treatment then that has to be a really good indicator that they will benefit because they want to do something about the problem," she said.

"It's much better to prevent crime before there's a victim than deal with it after it's happened."

Mr Broomhall said there were a couple of early intervention programs in Europe: Stop SO in the UK and the Dunkelfeld project in Germany.

But how they would mesh with Australian mandatory reporting laws is a concern.

Professionals, such as psychologists, are required to report suspected cases of child sexual, physical or psychological abuse.

But where the disclosure of an unrealised thought or impulse leaves both a patient or a practitioner is not so clear cut.

"We have to clarify for the general public what the mandatory reporting requirements are," Mr Broomhall said.

"Beyond that, certainly I think there is scope for government and police to look at the laws around mandatory reporting to see how we can accommodate a service that can be provided to people before they perpetrate acts of offence."

It is not the only thing Mr Broomhall and other experts want clarified.

There is the language used every day to describe looking at sexually explicit images of children.

This was highlighted early this year by case involving Japanese anime style images of children.

It was misleading to both describe those sexually explicit images as anime, and also as child pornography.

"Pornography between consenting adults is often legal," Mr Broomhall said.

"It confuses a legitimised term 'pornography' with 'child', and the risk is that can legitimise the practice."

Children can never give consent

Assistant Police Commissioner Linda Fellows said offenders often sought to justify or minimise their behaviour, and the term child pornography opened the door to that.

"Yes, because the child can never consent they are always the victim, and so it is an exploitation act on every occasion," she said.

Police want the phrase child exploitation material to replace child pornography, in line with international standards.

"We use the term child exploitation material, or CEM, to make we are giving the right message about what this is, which is exploiting children for the sexual gratification of other people."