Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Recently I was contacted by a constituent expressing his disgust at an offensive website, which continues to remain online, despite the fact that I have lodged complaints about it and so has he. It is a website that contains racist and discriminatory material directed at a suburb in the Shortland electorate. The suburb is Windale—a suburb that has had money invested in it by both the federal and state governments and where the community has joined together to counter negative images of the suburb. The people in the community are the salt of the earth. There are lot of very good people living there. It is a community in which the parliamentary secretary at the table, Mr Baldwin, very recently opened a men’s shed.

The material on the website is extremely offensive and in very bad taste. The themes presented include the following: people on welfare are dole bludgers; Aboriginal people are all second-class citizens—I cannot bring myself to use the words that are highlighted on the website; people living in low socioeconomic areas sniff petrol for enjoyment; there is pride in being the most socially disadvantaged postcode in New South Wales; people from ethnic backgrounds are considered ‘wogs’; Aboriginal people are all thieves; and people living in low socioeconomic areas drive broken, un-roadworthy cars. It makes me feel sick to say the things that are on that website.

The Centrelink logo appeared on that website accompanied by the words ‘Centrelink: giving you options’. I contacted Centrelink about this. The one good thing that has happened is that the legal department of Centrelink has got the Centrelink logo removed from the website. It added to the offensiveness of the website.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority was contacted about having the website closed down, and a formal complaint about the website was lodged. I was informed by ACMA in response to the complaint that, under its guidelines, the following categories of internet content are prohibited:

Content which is … classified RC by the Classification Board

Such content includes:

• material containing detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use;
• child pornography;
• bestiality;
• excessively violent or sexually violent material.

Content which is … classified X by the Classification Board

Such content includes real depictions of actual sex. The guidelines go on:

Content hosted in Australia which is classified R and not subject to a restricted access system which complies with criteria determined by ACMA

Content classified R is not considered suitable for minors and includes:

• material containing excessive and/or strong violence or sexual violence;
• material containing implied or simulated sexual activity;
• material that deals with issues or contains depictions which require an adult perspective.

ACMA also informed me: ‘The national classification code does not explicitly deal with language as a separate category, unless it falls within one of the prohibited categories outlined above.’ It would appear that the language content referred to in our complaint was not captured by the guidelines I detailed. ACMA also said that ‘complaints about internet content that may be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 should be directed to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’. But HREOC have informed me that a complaint must be lodged by a person of the race that has been slurred; it cannot be made by a concerned citizen. So, despite the fact that a constituent and my office have contacted them, nothing can happen.

Complaints must fit strict categories and guidelines, no matter how offensive. Racist and discriminatory material directed at low socioeconomic suburbs, such as the suburb of Windale in my electorate, remains on the internet. This material remains on the internet. It is not good enough. ACMA cannot do anything about it. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. (Time expired)

See this speech in context