Lucy Carter reported this story on Thursday, April 7, 2016 12:40:48

ELEANOR HALL: In New South Wales an inquiry examining the sexualisation of children and young people in the media has heard calls for the school sex education curriculum to be reviewed annually to keep pace with technology.



The parliamentary inquiry also heard that police should be given powers to force websites to remove revenge porn.



It's also heard from the Australian Family Association (AFA) which has used its submission to attack the Safe Schools program.



Lucy Carter has been following the inquiry and joins us now from New South Wales Parliament.



Lucy, who is giving evidence to this two day inquiry?



LUCY CARTER: Well, Eleanor, this inquiry was announced in October last year and between October and February there were 34 submissions received.



They were from everyone from the Advertising Standards Bureau, Family Planning New South Wales to the Australian Christian Lobby and Family Voice Australia.



Now the terms of reference for this inquiry are quite wide and as a result they've had quite far ranging views put forward.



It's heard on topics everything from the Safe Schools program as you mentioned, revenge porn, sexting, the age of consent for different sexual acts within New South Wales and also advertising focused on both children and the general public and whether that is sexualising children in any way.



ELEANOR HALL: Now 'revenge porn' was a big topic of debate today. Why was that?



LUCY CARTER: Well, Eleanor, revenge porn is obviously a very fraught topic at the best of times. It can start with something that is consensual and turn into something non-consensual perhaps when two consenting adults send each other maybe naked pictures and then one decides to do something difficult and painful by putting them on the internet.



It, of course, becomes more fraught when young people are involved.



Now evidence from 'Youth Action', an organisation representing young people and youth services across New South Wales, they were speaking today. There were two representatives and they were discussing this extremely sticky situation of the age of consent around revenge port.



The fact that it can start as consensual between these two young people but it may not be viewed as consensual as they themselves are under the age of consent.



Now there were calls for police in New South Wales to be given 'takedown' powers. The group, Youth Action, says that right now, a website has discretion over whether or not it's allowed or it should take down an image that could be distressing a young person or someone of the age of consent.



Now Katie Acheson is the CEO of Youth Action. She says that currently leaving this situation up to the, I suppose, goodwill of a website currently doesn't offer young people enough protection.



KATIE ACHESON: It's all up to the individual organisation so Twitter may have a policy that says that they can do that whereas Facebook might not.



So, it's really ad hoc at the moment and it means that young people who are concerned about something that's been posted without their consent actually don't have a clear line to remove those, that information from being on the internet.



ELEANOR HALL: That's Katie Acheson, the CEO of Youth Action.



Lucy, did this group say anything about the quality of sex education in schools?



LUCY CARTER: Yes Eleanor, they did. They said that a lot of research was needed on what exactly was age appropriate in schools.



They also said that there's increasing complexity within sexual education. They said the difference between now and just five years ago is extraordinary just in terms of the different types of social media that young people are using, the different ways that they're communicating with mobile technology and they've actually recommended that sexual education in schools in New South Wales be reviewed annually to try and keep pace with technology.



The example of Snapchat, which is an emerging social media that young people are using to send photos to one another in just the last year, shows how fast this is moving and how authorities need to stay on top of this to ensure that schoolroom conversations are appropriate.



ELEANOR HALL: And what about the Australian Family Association? We know they've been critical of the Safe Schools program; did they go beyond that criticism today?



LUCY CARTER: Well, the AFA used its entire, very extensive submission to this inquiry to basically pull apart the Safe Schools program.



It says the program isn't about stopping bullying, but says that it’s instead about normalising a gay agenda in schools.



At one point the AFA's national spokeswoman, Terri Kelleher, said she was concerned that Safe Schools was encouraging young people to think about gender as a construct or a mindset, rather than quote "something connected to their 'wibbly wobbly bits'".



Now the AFA said that they weren't satisfied that recent recommendations made after a federal government review into the Safe Schools program went far enough.



The group continually used the word 'sinister' several times when describing the Safe Schools program which, of course, is still in place at schools, several schools around Australia.



And the committee members at this New South Wales parliamentary inquiry did actually question many of the views that were put forward today by the AFA.



At one point Nationals MP Michael Johnson asked AFA representative Joe Carolan whether having schools guide students through sexually explicit material is preferable to young people accessing it on their own.



MICHAEL JOHNSON: Wouldn't it be better to have it in some guided fashion?



JOE CAROLAN: I would say the difference is between going down a dark alley on the internet to some porn site, a child knows what they're doing is wrong, ok. Whereas at school teachers have something acceptable and normal.



Okay, that's endorsing as if it's something good and I think that's very different to a child stumbling upon something on the internet.



MICHAEL JOHNSON: Well, teaching people about Hitler and his methods in World War II is not endorsing it. It is providing context, information, historical fact, hopefully with the view of never making that same mistake again. Couldn't you then take that view?



JOE CAROLAN: I would say that the tone of the Safe Schools programs is most certainly endorsing and presenting as acceptable these behaviours.



ELEANOR HALL: And that's Joe Carolan from the Australian Family Association speaking to New South Wales Nationals MP Michael Johnson.



Our reporter Lucy Carter covering that inquiry.