Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, I move:

(1) a Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety be established to inquire into:

(a) the range of online harms that may be faced by Australians on social media and other online platforms, including harmful content or harmful conduct;

(b) evidence of:

(i) the potential impacts of online harms on the mental health and wellbeing of Australians;

(ii) the extent to which algorithms used by social media platforms permit, increase or reduce online harms to Australians;

(iii) existing identity verification and age assurance policies and practices and the extent to which they are being enforced;

(c) the effectiveness, take-up and impact of industry measures, including safety features, controls, protections and settings, to keep Australians, particularly children, safe online;

(d) the effectiveness and impact of industry measures to give parents the tools they need to make meaningful decisions to keep their children safe online;

(e) the transparency and accountability required of social media platforms and online technology companies regarding online harms experienced by their Australians users;

(f) the collection and use of relevant data by industry in a safe, private and secure manner;

(g) actions being pursued by the Government to keep Australians safe online; and

(h) any other related matter;

(2) the committee present its final report on or before 15 February 2022;

(3) the committee consist of eight members, five Members to be nominated by the Government Whip, and three Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any non-aligned Member;

(4) supplementary members may:

(a) be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip or any minority party or independent member; and

(b) participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any question before the committee;

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(7) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(8) the committee elect:

(a) a Government member as its chair; and

(b) a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(9) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(10) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(11) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee;

(12) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(13) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;

(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives;

(17) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of any former committee on related matters; and

(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

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

In speaking to this inquiry that is being established I note that the safety of all Australians is paramount. Online safety has been an area of strong bipartisanship, and it should continue to be so. That has been acknowledged by both Labor and the government. Labor stands ready to examine whatever this government puts forward or proposes in this space and to work constructively through any issues that may arise. Labor supports the establishment of a Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety to inquire into online harms, including harmful content. Indeed, over a decade ago, in 2010, it was a Labor government that established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety as part of its commitment to investigate and improve cybersafety measures, releasing a report with 32 recommendations, each of which was endorsed and responded to by the then Labor government.

I want to say a few words in the context of evolving harms because Australia has long been at the forefront of online regulation, starting with the Australian Broadcasting Authority back in 1999, followed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which had responsibility for online safety well prior to the establishment of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. For over two decades there has been a constant evolution in everything online, from services and technology to user behaviour and case law, and, of course, in terms of regulation. The scale and pace of change will only continue, but the principle of protecting people from harm remains, whether it's spam, scams, defamation, privacy breaches or exposure to inappropriate content.

When it comes to keeping children, young people and adults safe online against a constantly evolving threat matrix, we need both big tech and governments to do better, to be ever-vigilant in understanding, anticipating and addressing online harms. It is therefore essential to have robust evidence about online harms, and it's imperative that big tech not be conflicted in its research efforts in understanding those online harms on their own platforms. It's important that both digital platforms and governments undertake research to understand the evolving online harms and what can be done in a very practical way to keep citizens and consumers safe online. But this research must not be misused. Governments need to fix the yawning information asymmetry on how platforms and the algorithms that drive them are used and abused. Whether this inquiry will fix this asymmetry remains to be seen. However, given it is a short inquiry that will run over the summer period and report in just over two months, in early February next year, we will soon find out.

As I said, it is the role of government to keep on top of issues in social media in order to keep Australians safe online, particularly children. The online environment is fast moving, so we do need to be ever-vigilant, as I said, but governments need to move swiftly as well. It is most unfortunate, therefore—and it is a fact—that the Morrison government has run late on everything from legislating a new online safety act, to reforming online privacy law, to improving digital media literacy and now to initiating this inquiry into online harms in the last sitting days of this year. It is late, late, late. To clarify, this Prime Minister is never late with the media announcements. The announcements come early, and there are many. But the actual delivery is always late or missing.

Labor was so disappointed, as were so many people in our community, that it took the Morrison government so long to introduce legislation for a new Online Safety Act in 2021, which will commence a good three years after the Briggs review recommended it back in October 2018. From the start of the 46th Parliament, and for a couple of years, the minister for communications repeatedly spruiked his then non-existent Online Safety Act in response to any and all concerns about online harms—everything from online hate speech and racism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist atrocity, to a self-harm video circulating on social media. Labor was disappointed that the minister was slow to release the exposure draft of legislation for consultation, only to then rush the introduction of the bill into parliament just eight business days after the consultation on the exposure draft had concluded. Labor is also disappointed that the Online Safety Act, now legislated, does not appear to address some of the things the minister had previously indicated it would actually address.

Turning to privacy reform, it's disappointing that this government is running so late in the area of privacy law reform and the introduction of a new online privacy code for digital platforms, which was recommended by the ACCC back in 2019. Long before any Facebook whistleblower warned of conflicts of interest in big tech, the ACCC had undertaken an inquiry and had recommended action, action we are yet to see delivered by this government. In terms of digital media literacy, at Senate estimates earlier this year, the department admitted it had completely dropped the ball on digital media literacy. This was another important piece of work that the ACCC recommended in its final report on the digital platforms in June 2019 after its 18-month inquiry. Yet this government completely dropped the ball on it.

The new Online Safety Act commences early next year, and the government is lining up a $4.4 million ad campaign before the election to tell Australians that it's keeping them safe. Australians should know what their governments are doing. They should be educated in this area. But, clearly, if the inquiry terms of reference—and they are substantial—are anything to go by, there is still a lot more to do.

While the ACCC digital platforms inquiry was comprehensive—it ran for 18 months and was led by a team of experts with powerful information-gathering powers—this inquiry will run for just over two months. This inquiry comes off the back of some related inquiries that Labor has of course supported. We supported the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography, which reported in February last year. We also supported the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, which reported in March this year. And in June this year, Labor supported, as I said, the passage of the Online Safety Bill with amendments to strengthen transparency and oversight.

Labor also supports this latest inquiry but, as I said, it does come late in terms of this parliament, very late in the day for this eight-year Liberal-National government. As a result, many Australians will now have to take time out of this period to participate in this process. Of course their participation is welcome, but it would not be a good thing if, because this occurs over the Christmas period, some people will not be able to participate.

For three budgets in a row, since 2019, I have asked the minister for communications what he is doing to address racist hate speech online, and for three years running the minister has dodged the question. In 2019 he made a general reference to the work that was being done on the Online Safety Act. In 2020 he just failed to answer it. In 2021 he failed to answer it again, on at least two occasions. Australians have a right to know what steps this government has taken to address the issue of online racism in Australia. What is being done in order to ensure that Australians are being kept safe online in this very important area? How does the Online Safety Act address racist hate speech and incitement to violence that targets groups, as distinct from individuals? If it doesn't do that, why not?

The last thing I will say is that this is a broad-ranging set of terms of reference. There is something that I want this parliament to know and I think many parents out there want to know as well. I supervise my children in their use of the internet. But what bothers me deeply is when I have my nine-year-old and four-year-old say to me: 'Mummy, you go out and tell people to get vaccinated. Why are the people in these ads telling us not to?' Nothing is being done to address the disinformation that is harmful during a pandemic. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications and Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the establishment of this inquiry and, in doing so, I acknowledge the Speaker's significant interest in this issue in the past. This is an important and substantive issue on which Labor will offer constructive bipartisan support. By now, all Australians are all too familiar with the very serious harms that can be caused to individuals by other individuals' conduct on social media platforms. The world has read in great detail about the great variety of these harms in the recently leaked Facebook Papers and the disclosures by the whistleblowers associated with that. The safety of Australians in the face of these harms is properly a role for government. Labor has shown repeatedly that we are ready to work constructively with the government, on a bipartisan basis, to implement substantive solutions to address these harms.

As the member for Greenway, the shadow communications minister, indicated in her comments, the terms of reference for this inquiry are very broad. And it will be important for this committee to consider the different ways that different online harms manifest themselves, and the different potential remedies for these harms. Those in this chamber know defamation proceedings have long been a common remit of people who believe that their reputation has been harmed by statements made about them, and seeking compensation for the harm done to them by those statements. The law of defamation obviously applies just as much to statements made online as it does anywhere else.

However, it must be said that, to avail yourself of this remedy, you need to engage legal representation. Even receiving legal advice in this respect is beyond the means of most people in our society. It is not an achievable remedy. Following up that legal advice with court proceedings is a privilege available only to those with very significant financial resources available to them. That's why we see this remedy being most commonly availed of by the powerful in our society—people like members of parliament, those of us in this chamber.

In this term of parliament, the media has reported on defamation concern notices being issued by, at least—this was just a very quick scan—the member for Pearce and the member for Dickson, and at least 13 separate concerns notices or defamation threats were sent by the member for Bowman. Solicitor Michael Bradley has pointed out that one of these defamation threats from the member for Bowman was made against the administrators of the Facebook page of the Older Women's Network, a 35-year-old not-for-profit that advocates for older women on issues like income security, homelessness, ageism, elder abuse and domestic violence. The member for Bowman seems to have avoided the very significant costs of engaging solicitors to issue that specific defamation threat because that was sent to the Older Women's Network by one of his electorate officers. No doubt there have been more defamation threats issued by members and senators in this place that haven't been reported in the media. It's a common remedy pursued by the powerful in our society when things they don't like are said about them online.

I note in the media reporting leading up to the establishment of this inquiry discussion about new potential defamation Federal Court orders relating to the unmasking of anonymous social media account holders in relation to defamation proceedings. One media report indicated that the government had said that it would establish a new Federal Court order that:

… requires social media giants to disclose identifying details of trolls to victims, without requiring consent …

It's an interesting proposition because the Federal Court already has the power to order a third party to attend court or to produce documents to identify prospective respondents. Professor David Rolph, a defamation expert at the University of Sydney, has said that there have already been a number of applications in recent years in the Federal Court for preliminary discovery to unmask 'the identity of a person responsible for posting content'. This isn't an arcane rule buried at the bottom of the statute books. It's not dead-letter law. It gets a lot of use. Indeed, there were three such orders made in March 2021 alone, all involving Google and all for the purpose of obtaining information as to the identity of a party against whom the person wished to commence a proceeding.

In 2015 the court ordered HotCopper, Australia's most popular stockmarket internet discussion site, to make discovery of all documents directly relevant to identifying a respondent who made derogatory comments regarding the management of a mining company. In March 2020 the Federal Court ordered Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous user who posted an allegedly defamatory review, and Google provided the user's IP address. The Federal Court ordered Optus to reveal the identity of the owner of that IP address. These orders have also been used by rights holders to unmask the details of persons who have engaged in copyright infringement—most famously, those who were involved in the copyright infringement of the Dallas Buyers Club movie. So it will be interesting to see the way that this inquiry investigates what supplementary discovery processes are created by this proposed new law.

A different manifestation of online harms is the bullying and abuse that has become so common on social media. The victims of this bullying and online abuse are regularly individuals who are not in positions of power. Women, people of colour, people from the LGBTIQ community and young people are often particular targets of this kind of online bullying and abuse. Let's be frank, it is rare to see defamation proceedings from people in these situations. What the targets of this kind of online bullying and abuse most often want is for the abuse to be stopped and for the offending material to be taken down from the internet. The eSafety Commissioner already has significant powers in this regard.

The eSafety Commissioner's already legislated powers in this respect include a cyberbullying scheme that has long been in place for children under which the eSafety Commissioner can require the removal of material from a range of online services—including online gaming platforms, content-sharing sites and messaging services—not just social media platforms.

There is an adult cyberabuse material scheme under which the eSafety Commissioner can require the removal of adult cyberabuse material that targets an Australian, if they're satisfied the material is posted with the likely intention of causing serious harm, and backed up by a civil penalties regime that can be imposed on the people who posted the material and the provider of the service where it appears.

The eSafety Commissioner's work is also backed by information gathering powers to obtain identity information, including basic subscriber information for anonymous accounts. Importantly, this legislative regime is backed by the extensive day-to-day work of the eSafety Commissioner, liaising directly with social media platforms and developing a relationship so that information can be shared and acted on promptly to ensure that action is taken and the regime is not simply dead-letter law. It's a substantive regime addressing a substantive issue, and no-one needs to engage lawyers to take advantage of it.

This issue of online abuse and bullying is too important for fluffy announcements that aren't matched by delivery. But, unfortunately, this inquiry comes very late in the piece—a summer inquiry into a serious issue in the shadow of a federal election. It really does follow a bit of a pattern by the Morrison government of grand announcements followed by much-delayed delivery, if delivered at all, in this space. We've see it on everything from legislating the Online Safety Act, to reforming online privacy law, to improving digital literacy in the community, and now this inquiry.

It was 2½ years after the Briggs review recommended it, back in 2018, before the Morrison government introduced legislation to establish its Online Safety Act. It addresses the same issues of online abuse and bullying that this new inquiry, which will run over the summer holidays, called in the shadow of the federal election, will address. The ACCC recommended a new online privacy code for digital platforms in 2019, and the government is yet to fully implement that. Strangely, though, while it took the Morrison government 2½ years to deliver on its Online Safety Act, and it's now establishing a new inquiry into the issue, suggesting that it believes there might still be more work to do in this space, the Morrison government has, of course, promptly lined up a $4.4 million ad campaign before the election, telling Australians everything that it's doing to keep them safe online—always very quick to act on the marketing campaign but less quick to deliver on the substance.

This inquiry comes very late in the term of this parliament. It's an open question how much time the parliament will have, how many sitting days the parliament will have, to implement the findings of this inquiry. Indeed, there are only, I think, four sitting days in the Senate in the next six months. So I hope that, in relation to the outcomes of this inquiry, planning has been done to make sure they are substantive and to implement them.

I do feel for the Australians who care about this issue and will have to give up some of their summertime, some of their summer holiday, a much-deserved break for Melburnians and Sydneysiders, to make submissions into this inquiry over the summer. This would have been better addressed with a substantive inquiry sometime before the establishment of this inquiry.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak to this motion, which the member for Brisbane has introduced on my behalf. I thank the members who have already spoken about the very important select committee which this motion proposes to establish so that members from all parties can come together to examine these issues, which are demonstrably of very substantial concern to Australian families, to Australian parents. I think we all know, from the concerns raised with us in our electorates by our constituents, that parents are very concerned about the impact of social media on children. They're very concerned to know what they need to do to be responsible in keeping their children safe. In particular, they want to be satisfied that, in this environment, where children and adults spend many hours a day and week, the platforms that provide this environment, and that do so in the course of pursuing highly profitable businesses, are making every effort to meet community expectations about people being safe online.

All Australians should be able to engage online confidently—to work, to communicate, to be entertained—without fear of abuse, humiliation or exposure to harmful content.

This has been an area where our Liberal-National government has had a very strong focus since we came to government in 2013. We came to government with a commitment to establish an office then known as the Children's eSafety Commissioner. We delivered on that commitment, established that office and legislated to give the holder of that office the power to administer a scheme to deal with the cyberbullying of Australian children. Since that came into force in 2015—in the face of strong resistance from the tech sector, I might say; in the face of continual advice that it wasn't necessary, that they had it under control; in the face of warnings that, if we took this action, Australia would become a global technology backwater; in the face of all of that—we delivered on what we had committed to, which was to establish a practical scheme to deal with the problem of cyberbullying.

Since that time we've added to the responsibilities of what is now known as the eSafety Commissioner. We established a legislative scheme to deal with the serious problem of the unauthorised sharing of intimate images, something which overwhelmingly affects women and girls and which is devastating to anybody who is a victim of it. We introduced powers to deal with abhorrent violent material following the shocking—the shocking—live streaming of the murder of over 50 people in the Christchurch mosque attack. When we went to the 2019 election, we committed that we would introduce a new and stronger online safety act, and we've done that. I want to acknowledge the bipartisan support we've had from the other side of the chamber, from the Labor Party, on the Online Safety Act. I also want to call out the extraordinarily irresponsible behaviour of the Greens, who voted against the Online Safety Act, notwithstanding the fact that they claim to be concerned about women's safety. It was quite an extraordinary and inexplicable decision on behalf of the Australian Greens party. You could not find better evidence, if any were required, as to how out of touch they are with the concerns of mainstream Australians.

We know that issues of very considerable concern remain. We know that the algorithms used by the platforms have a capacity to attract children, and indeed adults, into going further and further into seeing content, having exposure to content, which may not be in their best interests. We know that there are significant mental health consequences. I want to acknowledge the work of the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the member for Banks, who's doing outstanding work. We heard this morning, at headspace, that a significant number of young people who seek mental health assistance from headspace do so as a consequence of their exposure to social media.

We do have a strong and continuing agenda, but we want to hear from Australians. We've seen revelations, globally, thanks to commentary and information provided by the US Facebook whistleblower Ms Haugen, including in her congressional testimony, about aspects of Facebook's operating model. These are issues that we want to hear about from all stakeholders. And we want to hear from big tech. We want to hear them explain to the Australian people what proactive measures they are taking to keep Australians safe online. The eSafety Commissioner has substantial new powers through our Online Safety Act. I am confident that the testimony and the evidence that will be received by this committee, and the findings of the committee, will inform the work of the eSafety Commissioner as she makes regulations under that act, as she finalises the basic online safety expectations, along with all the other steps that will occur to give effect to that very powerful regulatory apparatus that we put in place.

Also, of course, just this week the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General announced the introduction of new legislative powers designed to require that anonymous online trolls be unmasked. We're going to do that by creating an appropriate set of incentives in defamation law so that if the platforms do not provide a complaint scheme allowing people a quick and efficient way to raise concerns about material which they believe is defamatory of them the platforms themselves will be liable in defamation law as publishers. So this is a set of regulations designed to give the appropriate incentives for those businesses to take the steps they need to take to keep their users safe. They've got the expertise in how their businesses operate, but we have stated very clearly what the principles are that we expect them to live up to. The exposure draft will be released today, I am advised, and there will be a significant period of consultation about the details of that. We do look forward to engaging with the tech sector in relation to those details.

I want to be very clear. The internet is, unambiguously, a force for good. The economic, social and educational benefits that it provides are profound. The opportunities it provides for people to stay in touch with friends and family, particularly through the pandemic, is just one example of the great richness of connectivity that the internet provides. But I think there is a very good analogy with the global automotive industry. We know that human beings find it enormously convenient to move around in private motor cars. Ever since they were invented, in the second half of the 19th century, they have been enthusiastically adopted. But what we also know is that there has been a steady improvement in safety standards and the application of regulatory requirements—indeed, global regulatory requirements—applying to global automotive manufacturers.

Here in Australia, under the relevant legislation, we can and do adopt those global standards. But we also reserve the right to impose Australian-specific standards, and that must be the principle for the sovereign government of Australia: that we will reserve the right to legislate and set the standards that those doing business in Australia must meet, including in the provision of online services. Tech platforms and digital platforms are used by millions of Australians: over 19 million Australians use Google every month and over 17 million use Facebook every month, according to the ACCC's Digital platforms inquiry report. The government of Australia, on behalf the people of Australia, expects that those are safe environments. We know that this is an issue of considerable concern. We've had a substantial legislative and regulatory agenda in this space since 2013, but it is a fast-changing space and a space where Australians—in particular, parents—are very concerned about ensuring that everything possible is being done to keep children and young people safe and, indeed, to keep Australians of all ages safe. That is why this select committee will be a very important exercise in reviewing the work that's been done and identifying whether further work needs to be done. I look forward to all stakeholders having the opportunity to fairly put their case before the committee.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a do-nothing government. After eight long years in office, they are still scratching around looking for a reason to be there. This government did nothing to prepare for the bushfire onslaught that devastated our nation in the Black Summer of 2019-20, despite multiple warnings from the most senior fire chiefs in the country through 2019. All the PM could manage was a secret holiday in Hawaii, and a disgusting, self-serving excuse that still reverberates almost two years later throughout our nation: 'I don't hold a hose, mate.'

This government did nothing and they continue to do nothing to build the quarantine facilities this nation has needed for almost two years now and which, as omicron and the ever-present spectre of other new variants makes clear, we still need. This government did nothing to ensure that Australians received an urgent supply of vaccines to ensure our population was protected from COVID-19 before the debilitating lockdowns our country has endured.

What have they done to keep on top of the significant harms occurring through social media in order to keep Australians safe online, particularly children? Next to nothing.

There have been endless announcements by the Liberal machine marketing department—a few press releases, a few speeches, a few press conferences and a few breathless headlines on the front page of their tame newspaper, the Australian. Nothing much of real substance to better protect Australians, particularly our children, has actually happened.

We in Labor hold that social media platforms have a responsibility to stop their platforms being misused by anonymous users to incite violence, spread disinformation and abuse, and defame people with impunity. Because we believe that the safety of Australians is paramount, online safety is an area of strong bipartisanship where Labor works constructively with the government on measures that will genuinely improve online safety. But this is not a new problem. Yet Mr Morrison has waited until the eve of an election, eight long years after the Liberals came to government, to announce that this government is proposing a new inquiry—another announcement by this tired, do-nothing government of yet another inquiry. If this government actually ever presents actual legislation to actually do something, Labor will study it closely. But this announcement now, for another inquiry on the eve of an election, sounds like just another bit of grandstanding, because that's what this government most likes to do—grandstand.

We all know what this government do after they complete most of their inquiries—nothing. They ignore them. Understandably, if you do nothing, nothing happens. Nothing changes. That's the story of this government. Perhaps I might not be being entirely fair here. They do have a press conference. They do make some announcements. They do furrow their brows after inquiries report and say things like, 'How could we have known?' or even, 'We are shocked.' They often even say they accept all the recommendations of the inquiries they have set up and then they get on with doing nothing, because that's what this government is—a do-nothing government.

Let's look at what happened with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's inquiry into workplace sexual harassment—her landmark Respect@Work report. The former Attorney-General, Christian Porter, left the landmark Respect@Work report to gather dust on his desk for over a year, and he refused to even meet with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to discuss the report's recommendations. When the government was finally forced to act on the report, after months of controversy following the courageous revelations made by Ms Brittany Higgins, the government claimed:

The Australian Government has agreed to (in full, in-principle, or in-part) or noted all 55 recommendations in the Report.

You can hear the weasel words there.

The government didn't even have the courage to say it was rejecting the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's recommendation for legislative changes to establish a clear, positive duty on employers to prevent workplace sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. But that's exactly what the government actually did when we came to the legislation in this parliament in August. In August the government, differently from what it said when it was announcing its response to the report, claimed it could ignore this key recommendation made by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner because, the government said, such a duty already existed, and, so claimed the government, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Respect@Work report was wrong.

What happened with the government's inquiry into their so-called Commonwealth Integrity Commission—that's the Morrison version of a national anticorruption commission. The Prime Minister has announced that, having called a public inquiry into the exposure draft of their catastrophically flawed bill and having received 333 submissions that they claim to have been carefully considering all year—you've got to feel sorry for the new Attorney-General, who took on the job in March; her claim right throughout this year has been that she has been carefully considering the 333 submissions on the government's version of an anticorruption commission. The Prime Minister's announcement, in the last week, was that they have decided to ignore every single one of the 333 submissions—every single one of them.

So their proposal is unchanged. Amazing! It must've been perfect! Except, of course, it's not. Their proposal is only perfect as a means to establish a cover-up commission, a protection racket to allow corruption in government to go unchecked, which is just how this government likes it, and the minister at the dispatch box right now knows all about it. What do we have here? Another inquiry.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on the minister to withdraw his disgusting statement.

Mr Robert interjecting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Enough! The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. Member for Fadden, you will withdraw that comment you made.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good. Sit down. Are you calling a point of order? What's your point of order?

The point of order is: the member can't come up here and accuse the government of corruption. I ask him to withdraw. He's impugning motives on a member, and that is against the standing orders.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not. You're using it in the wrong context.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is absolutely against standing orders—imputations on members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER : No, it's not. You want to have a good read through that.

I'll do that and get back to you.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He didn't say the member was corrupt.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should be named, Deputy Speaker, for his contempt for this House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs will continue.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll repeat what I said, because, clearly, the minister was not listening before. The proposal that this government has for an anticorruption commission is in fact a proposal to establish a cover-up commission. It is a protection racket that would allow corruption in government to go unchecked, which is just how this government likes it. I hope the minister was listening this time and will not be making the false accusation that he did before.

What do we have here now? We have yet another inquiry. Unfortunately, the Morrison government has run late on everything, from legislating a new online safety act, to reforming online privacy law, to improving digital media literacy in the community, and now to initiating this inquiry into online harms. This Prime Minister is always late. Labor was disappointed that it took the Morrison government so long to introduce legislation for a new online safety bill in 2021, a good 2½ years after the Briggs review recommended it, back in 2018. It's also disappointing that the government is running so late on privacy law reform and the introduction of a new online privacy code for digital platforms, which was recommended by the ACCC back in 2019.

At Senate estimates earlier this year, the communications department admitted that it had completely dropped the ball on digital media literacy. The minister for communications is also sitting on a report from the ACMA, delivered in June 2021, on the adequacy of the voluntary disinformation code, and he hasn't yet given the ACMA formal regulatory powers or additional funding to tackle misinformation. Sadly, this government and the minister for communications have not acted to deal with domain name system access. I've written twice to this minister for communications, and I'm very sorry that he's left the chamber as we are debating his own inquiry. The minister has not even given me the courtesy of a response to this urgent set of reforms that are needed to the Copyright Act, but that is symptomatic of a do-nothing government that doesn't actually want to do anything and wants to run away from the task of government. They have been found out.

Question agreed to.