Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to make some comments on the Enhancing Online Safety for children Bill 2014 and its related consequential amendments bill. I note that this bill has been referred to a parliamentary committee for consideration. The closing date for submissions on that was 12 January and the reporting date is 3 March 2015. This, I believe, was an appropriate course of action to take considering that this is the first time that such codified or hard regulation in this area exclusively focused on the subject matter at hand has come before the parliament. Of course, we have some telecommunications specific aspects of the Criminal Code Act. There are of course provisions in the Telecommunications Act and the related legislation but this bill as a whole is the first type of this legislation to come before the parliament.

The opposition will be supporting these bills subject, of course, to any recommendations which may arise from the Senate committee.

It is evident that the path to reach this point of legislative consideration has been complex. I think all of us in this place and our community at large recognise the importance of this issue and a variety of views have been expressed on the subject matter of this proposed legislation in media commentary, in academic papers and also in the submission process itself before the committee that I just mentioned.

The issue of getting the legislation is right as possible is, I believe, absolutely essential. If we look at the path so far that we have taken to this point, it is instructive to note that this is a complex area of regulation. To give a flavour, on 22 January 2014—over a year ago—the Department of Communications released a public discussion paper seeking comment on several of the measures that the government proposed to take to help protect Australian children in the online environment. Submissions in response to that discussion paper closed on 7 March 2014 and the government considered the feedback it had received. By 6 August 2014, just as an example of comments, the parliamentary secretary said that the government aimed to be in a position to introduce legislation into the parliament before the end of 2014, and, indeed, that legislation is what we are considering now. It was introduced in the last few sitting days of 2014 and here we are today.

It is important to note that these are matters on which this parliament, if not in a hard piece of legislation then certainly in other fora, has been extremely concerned about. Just as an example, in June 2013 this House considered the issue of cybersafety, particularly as it relates to children. And I will quote these comments I made, because looking back on them they are as relevant now for this legislation as they were during the consideration in June 2013. I said:

When we talk about emerging technologies, a debate will always happen on how best to regulate where regulation should occur. While we have that debate, I think two things should remain paramount. Firstly, the safety of children is paramount—we call it cybersafety and we need to focus on the issue of safety—and, secondly, harm minimisation generally as it applies to users of technology.

I made some comments in relation to the development of technology and the regulatory challenges that presents for policymakers. As I noted:

… content does not just disappear. It probably does not amaze a lot of people here, who have been engaged in this debate, but you would be amazed to know, in society, how many young people in particular think that, because they have deleted a post, text or picture from their device, that content is gone forever. But of course it is not.

I cited what, at the time, was a contemporary issue of extreme concern for a small town in Victoria. It again presents an immense challenge in terms of behaviour as it applies to technology. I noted, from a transcript of a recent 7.30 report at the time:

One in five young women have posted images of themselves nude or semi-nude online. Nearly half the girls have been asked to.

In this story there was a focus on a small Victorian country town where Facebook forums, it said:

… have trashed the reputations of local girls.

In small towns, where news spreads fast, and even faster in digital format, the lives of these young people have been, in some cases, I think, irreparably damaged, when you look at some of the evidence.

These are some of the very complex and challenging issues that we, as a parliament, have an obligation to address.

When we look at some of the initiatives that have already been taken in relation to cyberbullying, you can see that it is a vast array of often disparate initiatives, but at all times you can see that this has been a great focus of governments in Australia at both a federal level and a state level. Just to highlight a few: the Australian Federal Police child protection operations team, which investigates online child sex exploitation; the regulator, the ACMA, has the Cybersmart program, comprising an extensive range of cybersafety education initiatives; there is a cybersafety help button; the Easy Guide to Socialising Online; the ThinkUKnow websites, sponsored in part by the AFP; the Online Safety Consultative Working Group; the Youth Advisory Group on Cybersafety; the Teachers and Parents Advisory Group on Cybersafety; and ongoing cybersafety research into the challenging digital environment. Taking all of those together, and also reflecting on the fact that even a few days ago, on 10 February, we had Safer Internet Day—a day that is marked not only in Australia but also around the world—if you have a cursory examination of these provisions that already exist in relation to cyberbullying, it is appropriate to examine what this bill before us proposes to do.

The primary bill establishes a children's e-Safety Commissioner. It sets out its functions and powers, which relate to a defined prohibition against cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. Under this proposed legislation, a child or their representative can complain to the commissioner that they are or have been the subject of cyberbullying material and the commissioner may investigate such complaints. The bill sets out an expectation of the parliament that each social media service will comply with a set of basic online safety requirements, and these include minimum standards in a service provider's terms and conditions of use, a complaint scheme and a dedicated contact person.

Under this scheme, two tiers of social media services are created. Tier 1 comprises social media services that have applied to the commissioner to be declared as such. If I can summarise one of the key differences between the two tiers, as a practical matter one of the advantages that I see of the tier 1 declaration does appear to be reputational—largely reputational, but not exclusively. Social media services within tier 1 may be requested by the commissioner to remove material that has been the subject of a complaint as cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. In contrast, a tier 2 social media service may be issued a social media service notice by the commissioner, which requires the removal of such material. The commissioner also has the power to issue notices to end users who post cyberbullying material, which can include a requirement for them to remove that material. The primary remedy for non-compliance with such a notice is injunctive relief.

If a social media service fails to comply with the basic online safety requirements, a request to remove subject material or a social media service notice, then the commissioner may make a statement to that effect and publish it on its website. Civil penalty provisions arise in relation to non-compliance with such a social media service notice. The commissioner has other functions, including the promotion of children's online safety and to coordinate the activities of other departments relating to the same. The second bill contains related consequential and transitional provisions in other legislation.

I now turn to the issue of cyber bullying of young people in more detail. Labor are committed to do all that we can to combat online child bullying. Bullying itself is a scourge on our society. It can have devastating impacts on victims and their families, and I am sure many of us, representing our local communities as we do, have been touched in some way by that fact.

The evolution of technology has forever changed the way we are all connected. It has opened up new worlds of communication, friendships, learning and opportunities that have infinitely transformed and enhanced our lives. Of course we also have with that an unmatched opportunity to feed our desire to be more innovative, creative and decisive in shaping Australia's future, and certainly our nation's youth have seized on the same. Unfortunately, however, as technology has evolved so too have some of the darker aspects of our society been given new fora to insult and harm. Whilst bullying has always been a blight on our young people in particular, today of course bullying does not stop at the school gate. It can hound our children from the classroom to their homes via computer screens and an infinite number of mobile devices. Gone are the days when bullying could be easily identified through tangible acts such as teasing and physical violence. While this form of what we might call overt bullying is an issue that must be removed, it is the more covert and insidious act of cyberbullying that has become more rampant and widespread and which is the subject of this legislation.

Today, through the advent of social media, many of our children are enduring relentless harassment and anguish in the supposed sanctuary of their own homes. According to research led by the UNSW Social Policy Research Centre, which I note the government has quoted, one in five of our nation's children aged between 10 and 17 have experienced some sort of cyberbullying. It is worth noting that many instances will of course go unreported. The often clandestine nature of cyberbullying has meant perpetrators do thrive incessantly on tormenting their victims without fear of reprisal. The consequences of this can indeed be devastating. Evidence suggests that students who were cyberbullied report lower levels of connectedness and higher levels of loneliness at school as well as feeling less safe at school. They are also more likely to experience difficulties such as inattention and conduct problems as well as severe psychological, social and mental health problems compared to students who are not subjected to such abuse. The opposition, therefore, strongly believes we have a responsibility to do all we can to prevent damaging outcomes.

It is in part taking into account some of those issues that the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety interim report and the government's statement of response more specifically in December 2011 focused on the issues of the online environment in which children currently engage, ways in which to support schools in dealing with cyberbullying instances and analysing information on world's best practice safeguards. There are a number of recommendations made in that report, which the government took into consideration and have, I am sure, helped inform the direction of this proposed legislation.

I mentioned that young people are being more connected and are content generators of a type we have never seen before in our history. It is also important to note that listening to young people when it comes to how cyberbullying should be addressed is fundamental. I draw on an article by Slee, Spears, Campbell and Cross in the Centre for Strategic Education occasional paper in December 2011. It is an excellent summary of cyberbullying as a new manifestation of an old problem. It states:

Defined as repeated, harmful interactions that are deliberately offensive, humiliating, threatening and power assertive, cyberbullying interactions are enacted using electronic equipment, such as … (mobile) phones or the Internet, by one or more individuals towards another. Cyberbullying can take the form of instant or email messages, images, videos, calls, excluding or preventing someone to be part of a group or an online community.

…   …   …

In contrast to face-to-face bullying, the limits of cyberbullying are difficult to define. For instance, a single image can be forwarded countless times to innumerable people, a message can be pervasive and difficult to stop, an aggressor can remain unidentified hiding through multiple profiles, maintaining anonymity and making it harder for the victim to defend, escape or identify (and as a result, act to stop the behaviours). Furthermore, cyberbullying behaviours can change and assume new forms according to different interactional settings, highlighting both the overt and covert forms of these behaviours …

I mention that because these are the challenges that no doubt are faced by this legislation. Indeed, there is the challenge of bullying itself. As I noted in those quotes, bullying in whatever form is repeated, harmful, deliberate and offensive. I turn to a more recent piece reported in The West Australian on 26 August 2014. Under the headline 'Old-school bullying still rife' it states that twice as many teenagers are subjected to traditional schoolyard type bullying compared with cyberbullying, according to recent research at Murdoch University. The author of this research said:

… the focus of anti-bullying methods should be not so much on the method used by teenagers but the underlying causes of the behaviour.

I think this is also a very important point. The article continues:

Schools and communities have limited resources and we need to be smart about finding ways to have maximum effect on harmful behaviours, wherever they occur.

On that point I simply note The Australian Financial Review on 25 August last year had an acknowledgement by many studies that parents need to be vigilant and active in the world of social media in order to understand its dangers. One of the psychologists states:

… the world of social networking and its relentless, 24-hour presence in our lives, and our children's lives, has created the conditions under which feelings of anxiety and fear in children can take root and flourish.

…   …   …

… children who might ordinarily have never become bullies sometimes display bullying tendencies with access to social media.

These children take to online to assert themselves in a environment where they don't have to use the range of emotions they use in face-to-face communication, so they might resort to some derogatory behaviour in an online setting.

As I mentioned, considering all these factors surrounding the definitions of bullying in both online and more traditional settings, and taking into account some of the research into how it should be addressed, it is important that this legislation is given proper consideration—and I think the process of going through the current Senate review is one that is very appropriate. All industry bodies and all submissions that have been made, not just from industry, should be thanked for taking part in this process.

Similarly, along with my colleague the shadow minister, the opposition has also consulted widely with industry and with a variety of interested groups and individuals on this legislation, and we do acknowledge the concerns that some have expressed with it. There are concerns around the practical implementation of some of the elements of this scheme, and of course parliament should always be cautious when it comes to imposing new regulation in what is an extremely dynamic and evolving technology landscape. I note, for example, the concerns expressed by the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association Digital Policy Group, which represents some of the more well-known faces of social media including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo7.

It is also important to acknowledge many of the proactive steps being taken by communications and social media organisations when it comes to protecting people and taking action against online bullying. As one of the fundamental principles, social media companies of course have a commercial interest in innovating and, in doing so, doing all they can to ensure people can use their respective services free from harm and not be afraid to engage and take up more such services and thus allow innovation to thrive. As the AIMIA states in its submission, its member bodies:

… have policies that expressly prohibit bullying; we invest in a reporting infrastructure that allows the millions of people who use our services to report any bullying content … to promptly review and action those reports; and we undertake online safety outreach and awareness-raising.

It is also appropriate to note a recent announcement made by Twitter, a company that had admitted it 'sucks'—in the words of the CEO—at addressing the online abuse that occurs on its service and the need to enhance their in product harassment reporting and make improvements to its block feature.

I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work from anti-bullying organisations in Australia who work to protect our young people online. I want to specifically mention the efforts of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation on the recent launch of the eSmart Digital Licence; an online tool designed to education and protect children against cyber bullying. It must also be mentioned that Google contributed $1.2 million to the program to ensure the digital licence is available to all year 6 students across Australia—a similar concept to when a child obtains a pen licence to give up their pencil and use a pen. As noted by the AIMIA Digital Policy Group in its submission to the Senate committee, 'Online safety is best achieved when government, industry, and the community work together.'

Also notable—and I think we would all have local examples—are the efforts that are taken in our communities to address online bullying. I can draw very easily on two recent examples by the Quakers Hill Local Area Command, which conducts cyber-bullying workshops for parents on a regular basis for schools in my local area. It is greatly appreciated that these police take the time to engage with the community and to try and effectively reach out to parents. I was speaking to one of the police who undertakes this sort of work and he said, 'Yes, it is really effective, it is really important and we are really committed to doing this. This is an important part of police work. Prevention is a very important part of police work.' But, unfortunately, sometimes it is the parents who need to be there who are not the ones who turn up. A lot of people have commented to me that the parents and caregivers who end up being at these sessions are often very well informed, which is great to see. But we need to be vigilant in thinking about how we reach out to those parents who either are not aware or who are otherwise oblivious to the behaviour of their children in some cases, and who are causing such harm.

I noted in my previous comments the issue about implementation. I draw from the second reading speech made by the parliamentary secretary to illustrate a couple of areas where it will only probably be in the implementation, and examining how the commissioner works as it starts its business before we really know how these provisions are going to work in practice. To give one example on the issue of the two-tiered rapid removal scheme, I quote here from the parliamentary secretary's comments in this place:

Following investigation of a complaint, the commissioner may request that the tier 1 social media service remove the cyber-bullying material, but there is no legal obligation on the social media service to comply.

In one sense, one might say, 'How can that be effective?' But I appreciate that the reality is we have had in Australia—and it has operated very effectively—a co-regulatory scheme. In this case we have codified, to some degree, what had been in place under the Gillard government, which was a cooperative arrangement for complaints handling on social networking sites. This established a set of principles for things like acceptable use; a complaints mechanism; having an identified contact person; and education and awareness raising which, as I note in my previous comments, is quite similar to the parliament's statement of expectations that are specifically contained in the legislation.

If there is criticism that this provision is somewhat weak, I believe that it is important to recognise the co-regulatory nature of our scheme and, more importantly, as I engaged with the parliamentary secretary on this issue, that this rapid removal scheme needs to ensure that, regardless of the technology that develops, that technology is capable of removal and is capable of identifying the person who posted it in the first place. To this end I think one of the more instructive examples is in an article that was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 December 2013, where police issued a warning on a social media messaging app—not one of the traditional online social media sites—called Kik. The article states:

NSW Police have described it as ''the number one social media problem involving teenagers''—but most parents would barely have heard of messaging app Kik before this week.

Kik's popularity among young people was highlighted by the disappearance of Sydney teenager Krystal Muhieddine, who left her house early on Tuesday morning in a car with a stranger before being found in country Victoria on Friday.

Krystal's parents did not allow their children to use social media in the house, but Mrs Muhieddine said she believed her 14-year-old daughter had been using Kik to communicate with the person with whom she left.

That is one challenge. The other challenge I raised with the parliamentary secretary is the issue of end-user notices. Quoting the parliamentary secretary:

The bill will not include a power for the commissioner to fine end-users who fail to respond to a notice … because the government is wary of imposing fines on children in this area.

Many of those who fail to respond to a notice could, in fact, be children. And:

The government anticipates that the commissioner will enter into arrangements with the police and educational bodies setting out the circumstances in which matters would be dealt with by those parties.

The parliamentary secretary told me that, as the commissioner undertakes their role, he anticipates that guidance notes might be issued. Even as a starting point, how does one serve a notice on a child, for example? Would it be done through electronic means? Would it be done by letter—as notices are often served? And how does one identify who that end user is? As I noted in my previous comments, often these are matters and actions that are undertaken under the shadow of anonymity or with fake identification.

Whilst I recognise that these are some of the challenges in implementation, the opposition believe that they should indeed be given a go in order for them to have a chance to prove themselves effective in addressing these issues.

In conclusion, the opposition will be supporting this legislation. We will see what arises from the Senate committee report and whether any substantive measures might need to be taken up. I do note that there is a statutory review mechanism in the legislation which is highly appropriate for legislation of this nature and which is the first of its kind specifically and solely on this subject matter. It will be important for whatever government, committee or body undertakes or oversees this review to do so, being mindful of the very important intent of this legislation. We do have a duty to do all we can to prevent and stop the bullying of young people, and we hope that this legislation achieves those aims.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for providing a briefing to the opposition on this matter, and I thank his adviser, Amy Dobbin, for facilitating these briefings. It has been greatly appreciated and has enabled us to form our views on this very important legislation.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014, which fulfils this government's commitment to enhance online safety for Australian children. We live in a world where the internet is an integrated part of our daily lives and access to the internet is rapidly increasing. This is in large part due to the growth in ownership of internet-connected mobile devices.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority reported in 2013 that 53 per cent of children owned or accessed their first internet-connected device before the age of 10 and that around half of 14- to17-year-olds access the internet through mobile phones. Forty-three per cent of Australian children aged 14 to 17 have their own smartphone. This access offers many benefits and it has become, for many, an essential part of being a child in Australia. For our children it provides a means to interact with friends, share information, access entertainment and undertake research and homework. However, it also allows children the opportunity to access the internet under the radar of parents, teachers and other supervising adults.

Social media services have entered our lives over the past decade and play an instrumental role in the way we communicate with each other. In 2011, the use of social media was identified as the primary form of digital communication between young people aged 13 and over. In fact, social media was used more frequently than text messages, phone calls and email. Around half of children aged between eight and 11 use social media, and this number increases to around 90 per cent of children aged 12 to 17 years.

In Australia there are approximately 12 million Facebook users, of which 7.3 million use the mobile app daily. Last year it was identified that 89 per cent of 12- to 17-year-olds use Facebook and 65 per cent use YouTube. With smart technology increasing and becoming more affordable, we are witnessing growth in the number of children who have access to social media at their fingertips. We must, however, be conscious of the pitfalls associated with this growth in social media. As more Australian children independently access the internet without adult supervision, we are seeing greater exposure to online safety risks such as cyberbullying. Therefore, it is important to make accountable and deter those who seek to use this platform to target and damage Australian children.

Cyberbullying is an unwanted consequence of the emergence of social media. Social media is part of our daily lives and, over the coming years, we will see more accessible and affordable social media services available to our children. Ensuring the safety of children within this growing cyber environment is an ongoing and challenging task.

The provisions within this bill aim to enhance the online safety of Australian children. They include the establishment of a children's e-safety commissioner to take a national leadership role in online safety for children and implementation of an effective complaints system, supported by legislation, that will remove harmful cyberbullying material which is targeted at an Australian child from social media sites in a timely manner.

The government developed this legislation following public and stakeholder consultation, and carefully considered more than 80 submissions received in response to the public discussion paper entitled Enhancing Online Safety for Children, which was released in January 2014. The commissioner will serve as an independent statutory office with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, with the key function of administering a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child.

The government has been mindful of striking the right balance between capturing the full breadth of cyberbullying material whilst avoiding an excessive, heavy-handed scheme which may result in regulating material which does not need to be regulated. The bill stipulates that material must be likely to have the factor of seriously threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating a specific Australian child. The inclusion of the word 'seriously' intends to guide the commissioner and the courts so that material that is deemed minor, trivial or frivolous in nature is not deemed as cyberbullying.

Research conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales found that over a 12-month period around 20 per cent of young Australians aged eight to 17 will have been cyberbullied. Furthermore, it is estimated that 463,000 Australian children and young people per year are exposed to cyberbullying. This equates to approximately 1,272 every day. This bill establishes a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. Complaints will be able to be made to the commissioner by an Australian child or by a parent or a guardian of the child. The commissioner will have the power to investigate complaints and conduct such investigations as the commissioner deems appropriate.

As the member Dobell I have been a strong voice for those who suffer from mental health issues in my local community. The social media phenomenon has created another complex layer to youth mental health problems. Deb Howe, Manager of the Children and Young People's Mental Health, CCH, commented:

We have experienced young people attending our service who have been cyber bullied on social media extensively resulting in extremely negative impacts on their mental health.

Helen Isenhour, Manager of headspace Gosford, stated:

The initial response to cyber bullying can include incredible stress, panic and anxiety—we see this firsthand in young people attending Headspace. Often the ongoing impact will affect the young person in multiple ways such as poor self-esteem, worry and stress about peer relationships, feeling scared or frightened and unsafe, and very often will go on to have detrimental effects on work and/or study.

The Central Coast region, tragically, has one of the highest rates of youth suicide in Australia. I am working with families, education providers and healthcare professionals to reverse and eliminate this devastating trend.

In December 2014 I updated parliament on the activities of the Dobell Youth Advisory Committee, which, at a recent meeting, raised the issue of mental health issues within our school system. In my address to parliament, I stated:

Our youth require a robust and adaptable support network to help them deal with the rapidly changing landscape of maturing from child to adult.

Social media makes up part of this challenging landscape that the youth of today must navigate. During this meeting with the Dobell Youth Advisory Committee I posed the following question:

What do you believe to be the leading cause of stress and anxiety amongst school students?

And they responded by stating:

The role social media is playing is now bringing what were once issues contained to the schoolyard into students' homes.

These are the words of current students who are experiencing and witnessing cyberbullying within their school community.

Increasing access to the internet through smart technology means that today's students are connected to one another continually throughout the day and night. Research published by the Department of Communications identified that, in 2014, 87 per cent of secondary schools reported at least one instance of cyberbullying, as did just under 60 per cent of primary schools.

The two biggest influences in young people's lives are school and home. Today many children find themselves unable to avoid or escape social media no matter where they are. It has been suggested that when children are physically bullied at school at least they know that they are safe from the offenders when they are at home. But this is not the case with cyberbullying. Derision, ridicule and hatred follow the victim from the schoolyard to their bedroom. There is literally no escaping from the bullying.

There is a perception amongst the community that cyberbullying is more difficult to detect and that those engaging in such activities are less likely to face consequences for their actions. As such the impacts of cyberbullying remain relatively unreported, and perpetrators remain unaccountable for their behaviour. It often takes the most tragic of circumstances to expose this behaviour. However, it is important to acknowledge that cyberbullying occurs every day and it is often difficult for the victims to know where to turn for help.

Research conducted by the University of New South Wales indicates a stronger association between cyberbullying and suicidal ideation compared to traditional bullying. A person behind a keyboard may not realise that their words can damage someone's self-esteem and state of mind, which can ultimately lead to depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that suicide rates in 15 to 19-year-olds have steadily increased since 2008, and from 2011 to 2012 increased by 10 per cent. In January 2012 a 14-year-old Melbourne schoolgirl took her own life after suffering from bullying. In September 2013 a 15-year-old Tasmanian schoolgirl took her life after being bullied—including cyberbullying. And earlier that year, a 13-year-old Sydney girl took her life after relentless bullying.

These cases are only the tip of a much larger and potentially deadlier iceberg. The Australian Communications and Media Authority have identified that 21 per cent of 14- to 15-year-olds and 16 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds reported being subjected to cyberbullying. The Department of Communications released research in August 2014 which identify that 20 per cent of children aged eight to 17 in Australia experienced cyberbullying in the preceding 12 months. A case study from the National Children's and Youth Law Centre found that Facebook was the main platform used for cyberbullying, accounting for 43 per cent of all instances.

Until now there has not been a regulatory framework in which to deal with people who take to the internet seeking to cause harm to others. This bill will establish a two-tiered scheme for the removal of cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child from social media sites. Parliament will establish a statement of expectations stipulating that social media services will comply with certain basic online safety requirements, those being that a social media service has: terms of use that prohibit the posting of cyberbullying material; a complaints scheme under which end users of the service can seek to have material that breaches the service's terms of use removed; and a contact person for the commissioner to deal with.

Social media services will be required to apply to the commissioner for declaration as a tier 1 social media service. The commissioner will then be required to declare that the service complies with the basic online safety requirements as prescribed above. In response to a complaint, the commissioner will have the power to request the provider of a tier 1 service to remove cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child within 48 hours. Should the social media service repeatedly fail in their obligation to protect Australian children over a 12-month period, or should the commissioner conclude that the service does not comply with the basic online safety requirements, the commissioner may revoke the service's tier 1 status and class it as a tier 2 social media service.

Tier 2 social media services will be declared by the Minister for Communications following a recommendation from the commissioner and subject to direct regulation. In response to a complaint, the commissioner will have the power to issue a 'social media service notice' to the provider of a tier 2 service. This will require the provider to remove cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child within 48 hours. A person who fails to comply with a social media service notice may be subject to a financial penalty, an enforceable undertaking or injunction.

By defining cyberbullying material and clearly identifying a complaints resolution system, we are ensuring that people are aware of the consequences of engaging in cyberbullying. The legislation also ensures that social media providers are aware of their responsibilities by prescribing the online safety of Australian children using their service. The commissioner will maintain a register of tier 1 and 2 social media services and will also be able to publish statements about non-compliant providers. This means, if a social media provider is non-compliant with the basic online safety requirements, a request for the removal of cyberbullying material or a social media service notice, they will be publicly named.

This legislation also provides the commissioner with power to deal with individuals who engage in cyberbullying against an Australian child. The bill will enable the commissioner to issue a notice to a person who posts cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. The notice will require that person to take all reasonable steps to ensure the removal of the material, refrain from posting further material targeted at the child and apologise to the child.

The government is committed to the success of these reforms and will provide $6.7 million this financial year and approximately $11 million per annum thereafter to ensure the commissioner has the resources to conduct their duties. This is a serious issue which requires the involvement of the entire community. Together, we will hold cyberbullies to account for their actions. This is why I will continue to work closely with local schools and families within my electorate to address the issue of cyberbullying and develop effective responses that will protect our children.

As members of parliament, most if not all of us are subjected to cyberbullying on a daily basis. I will not be intimidated or bullied by these cowards who hide behind a keyboard, but, if you target children, you should be ashamed of yourselves. That is why this government is implementing a framework aimed to protect Australian children. This legislation is an important first step in declaring society will not tolerate cyberbullying and its adverse impact on our children. This legislation provides legislative authority to protect the most vulnerable users of the internet—and that is our children—from bullies who hide behind keyboards and seek to abuse and harass Australian children. As I said before, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. It is about time that you were held accountable for your actions. I commend this bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As previous speakers have outlined, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 will enable the government to appoint a commissioner with the power to order large social media services and individuals to remove offensive material posted online. Under this bill, a Children's e-Safety Commissioner office will be set up to crack down on online bullying. Companies will face fines of up to $17,000 per day if material targeting children is not removed, and individuals could face legal action under existing criminal laws. Individuals could be reported to police by the commissioner if material continues to be posted online.

In essence, this bill builds on the good work that was started by the previous Labor government. For a long time, it has been acknowledged by people in this House that more work needs to be done to catch up with the digital age. It is true, as previous speakers have said, that the bullying that a child can face online can be just as harmful as the bullying that they face in the playground—hence the need for all governments and all people involved to speak up and act in this area.

Research from the University of New South Wales has found that roughly one in five children in Australia is reported to have been bullied online. It is an alarming statistic to think that one in five children has been subject to bullying online. As the chief executive of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation has said, there is no difference between somebody who is bullied online and somebody who faces bullying face to face. They are different methods but both can cause enormous harm.

The challenge with all bullying is giving children the confidence to speak up, whether it be face to face or online, and to be able to share what they have experienced with their parents, their peers, their teachers and other people in their environment. Whilst there are laws in every state and territory which cover all forms of bullying, this bill supports those laws for the digital age.

As I mentioned, this bill builds on the good work of the previous Labor government. The previous Labor government established a voluntary, non-binding protocol that was developed in response to recommendations to a 2011 parliamentary committee report on cybersafety. It was announced by the former Prime Minister that a new school education program would be rolled out to help combat cyberbullying.

I will just take a moment to highlight two local examples from my community where schools and students took up that challenge and were actively involved in tackling this issue. Josh Murdoch, who is a student from Castlemaine Secondary College, took a stand to say he was someone who was subjected to cyberbullying. The year 10 student amassed more than 400 votes in a government supported film competition, Back Me Up. The aim of the program is to eliminate cyberbullying. He made a short film called Stand Up! Don't Stand Down, which at the time was one of the top five people's choices. Josh said it was his personal aspect that he believed made the film so popular with his peers.

The 15-year-old said that he had been a victim of cyberbullying and wanted other victims to know that there was support. He said at the time he did not make the video to be popular but made the short film to highlight his experience and to encourage others to speak up. He said that people need to understand that they are not alone and that there is help to overcome the fears associated with cyberbullying. A quarter of Australian children report that they have been cyberbullied. Whether it be one in five or a quarter, whichever research you turn to, cyberbullying appears to be an ongoing problem in our school community.

Another school in our area that has been working quite hard to tackle cyberbullying is the Bendigo South East Secondary School. The Bendigo South East Secondary School was the first eSmart accredited school in Victoria, with an initiative that they introduced to tackle cyberbullying. The school's information technology coordinator, Jill Fitzgerald, said in an article to the Bendigo Advertiser that school representatives at the school council brought together teachers, students and parents to work out new policies on the use of computers. They made a code that they encouraged all students to be involved in. The program, which was developed in coordination with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, will be rolled out to all schools with state funding. I seek leave to continue my remarks at another time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.