From the report (and ignoring for a moment the biases of the authors, two of whose research backgrounds are linked to their names):
Young males are more likely than females to deliberately seek out pornography and to do so frequently.
The best approach for parents, caregivers and teachers responding to children’s exposure to pornography is to encourage open communication, discussion and critical thinking on the part of children, while educating themselves about the internet and social media.
Parents and caregivers are less likely to be intimidated by online risks if they are informed and take an active role in their children’s digital lives.
So this report, which appears to be by some people who are quite ‘anti-pornography’, doesn’t suggest some sort of Internet filter; it says parents need to step up!
In Australia, just under half (44%) of children aged 9-16 surveyed had encountered sexual images in the last month. Of these, 16% had seen images of someone having sex and 17% of someone’s genitals.
Wait - what is a sexual image that doesn’t involve genitals? Are we talking breasts? If so, are male breasts and female breasts considered equal? What about pictures of breast-feeding?
Parents tend to overestimate exposure to pornography for younger children and underestimate the extent of exposure for older children.
In the absence of other information, pornography can be the main source of a young person’s sex education.
Digging a little deeper for the “44%”, one finds near the bottom of the page that:
The content in this Research Snapshot has been taken from Quadara, A., El-Murr. A., & Latham, J. (2017). The effects of pornography on children and young people: An evidence scan. Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
That is, the more complete report. Based upon looking at ‘the evidence’, as chosen by the research team.
Now I’m a little lazy, and could not be bothered reading the entire report plus its 119 page appendix. Instead, I did a simple search of both for that 44% (actually, for just 44 to make the search more tiresome but also more likely to find a reference). The only place it appears is as quoted above! There is no footnote, no end note to provide any further information, making the number on the face of it unsupported by the evidence.
Just to be clear, this is not about parental supervision; it is about parental guidance.
If multiple people share a computer then they should be managed via different accounts - regardless of their age!
Again - education… and embarrassment. If you find that your son has left his account unlocked, change his wallpaper to Hannah Montana or whatever kids hate today. (Make sure that only the administrator has access to do this.) After a few such episodes you will find the accounts are carefully guarded.
In short, there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution or government intervention that will actually ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ - but an enormous number of risks associated with the proposal. Even if you have absolute trust in the current government, what about the next one? Or the one after that? With a maximum of three years between federal elections, we could very quickly find ourselves with a totally untrustworthy government that has all the data collected by its trusted predecessors.