David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill requires the minister to act on a clear recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner to implement a trial of age assurance technology to protect children from dangerous online content, particularly pornography.

Age assurance is a similar concept to age verification.

This bill would require the Minister for Communications to implement a trial of age assurance technology precisely as recommended by the eSafety Commissioner, and report to the parliament on its progress every six months.

It's a sensible approach which exactly mirrors what the government's own eSafety Commissioner recommended.

What it's about

What this would do is actually require pornography sites to ensure that people who are under 18 do not access their content, and there's a long background to this.

There was a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry, chaired by the member for Fisher back in 2020, called Protecting the age of innocence that called for this to happen.

In 2021 the coalition asked the eSafety Commissioner to conduct a review into this very serious issue of protecting kids online, and after a two-year process the eSafety Commissioner came back to the government in March and said:

Develop, implement, and evaluate a pilot before seeking to prescribe and mandate age assurance technologies for access to online pornography.

This was a very, very clear recommendation all about protecting kids.

The government waited five months after receiving that recommendation and then—what did the Minister for Communications do at the end of the five months?—said, 'No. We're not going to do it. We're going to reject the recommendation from our own expert who has spent two years looking into this absolutely crucial and fundamental issue.'

Why on earth would the government not take action to protect kids as recommended by the eSafety Commissioner? What the government said instead is, 'Let's leave it up to industry. Let's leave it up to industry codes'—literally, industry codes to which the pornography industry itself will contribute. Now, this process is going to take years, whereas the eSafety Commissioner says, 'Get on with a trial of this technology now.'

And the government says the technology isn't ready. Well, tell the UK that, because just four weeks ago the United Kingdom legislated for age verification technology. It is now law in the UK for age verification technology to be in place for children to be stopped from accessing specifically pornography, specifically material related to self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.

It's in the statute books of the United Kingdom today. Our government in Australia, the Albanese government, says the technology's not ready; let's leave it up to the industry themselves to write some codes that'll take years.

The government's own national plan to address violence against women and children says this:

With pornography now overwhelmingly consumed online and via mobile devices, it is both prevalent and pervasive, perpetuating sexist, misogynistic and degrading views about women. This is a serious concern in addressing the drivers of violence against women and children.

That is in the government's own report.

Some of Australia's most eminent experts have very strongly criticised the government's decision. Here is what the experts said in a letter organised by Collective Shout:

It is our strong view that the Government has allowed itself to be swayed by industry resistance to an age verification system. Vested interests should not have been put before the wellbeing of children.

That's a strong statement. Who said it? Well, 49 people signed that letter, including: Robert Fitzgerald, the former commissioner of the royal commission into child sexual abuse; author Maggie Dent; Alison Geale, the CEO of Bravehearts; the Daniel Morcombe Foundation; Chanel Contos from Teach Us Consent; Grace Tame of the Grace Tame Foundation; author Madonna King; author Steve Biddulph; and Anna Bowden, the CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children Australia. They all signed that letter.

What did Anne Hollonds say? Anne Hollonds is the National Children's Commissioner specifically charged with looking after the interests of Australian children. What did Ms Hollonds say in relation to the government's decision not to implement this very clear recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner? That is what Anne Hollonds said:

If child wellbeing was a national priority, we would act on e-Safety's plan to trial ways to protect young kids from online porn. This would help to reduce child sex abuse, youth crime, domestic and family violence.

That's what the National Children's Commissioner said. So there's been condemnation by dozens and dozens of experts.

Do you know who did welcome this decision by the Minister for Communications and the Albanese government? Not child safety experts and certainly not Bravehearts, the Daniel Morecombe Foundation or the former commissioner of the royal commission into child sexual abuse. They didn't welcome it at all but the exact opposite. Do you know who welcomed it? The Eros Foundation, which speaks on behalf of the pornography industry, which we know is responsible for so much damaging and degrading material that is being consumed by Australian children every day. The Eros Foundation welcomed Minister Rowland's decision, but dozens of our top child safety experts condemned it. Something is very, very wrong here.

Conclusion

Where is the Prime Minister in this? Does the Prime Minister know the decision that his minister has made? You would hope so; he is the Prime Minister. So, if he knows about it, that means he must support it. How can the Prime Minister support such an appalling decision which has been so roundly condemned by experts? The basic question is: what on earth is going on here?

The parliament should support this bill because this bill forces the minister to take action. The minister, for whatever reason, hasn't wanted to take action. This bill says, 'You have to.' It says: 'Like it or not, you've got to get on with it. You've got to do what the eSafety Commissioner wants you to do and what all of these very eminent experts want you to do and conduct this very important technology trial.' That's why this bill should be supported. It's incredibly important. This is one of the defining issues of our era—the way we respond to issues of child safety online. I strongly commend this bill to the House. I have a little time left which I want to cede to the member for Fisher, who was the chair of the original inquiry that started this process in 2020.

See this speech in context