My understanding is that his reference was to something in Australia. In what I looked at between Monday and today, I think his reference was to the Commonwealth criminal code on Internet offences. It's a criminal law that applies to all of Australia, although criminal law is a state power.
In that statute of federal law they do use both “child pornography” and “child abuse material”. I'm not sure if that was what he was referring to because he didn't, as I understood from Monday, table any documents, but for different purposes. That law does in fact still use child pornography in a broad sense, as our definition does as well. They use “child abuse material” to refer to, in my understanding, a different form of material, which depicts children under 18 as victims of torture, cruelty, or physical abuse. There is quite a difference in approach.
Again, I say that with caution, because I'm not sure that's exactly what he was referring to, but that's what I'm aware of.