Quite surprised to see the Weekend Australian publish the picture of this naked child on page 2. Presumably this puts them in the same boat as the photographer.
Seems to distil the conundrum - apparently page 2 of a broadsheet paper contains a naked picture, which is art, but page 3 of a tabloid would contain a nude picture, which would be porn.
Context is important in making this distinction, but in either case, it is the child exploitation that makes it objectionable. Laws protecting children, like the age of consent, are all about sheltering children from the consequences of poor decisions until they at least nominally possess the capacity to make a reasoned choice.
Deciding to pose naked for a photograph is a decision that plenty of adults have lived to regret and it is deplorable to have put a child in that situation at age 12.
A pretty poor decision to publish it to a wider, un-restricted audience and The Australian may find this different context brings them undone, even if the photographer escapes conviction.
