Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007. This bill is intended to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 so as to establish a new regulatory framework for live internet and mobile content and convergent devices, including 3G mobile phones and other mobile communications devices that act as multimedia platforms and are able to deliver audiovisual content, so that our children are protected from exposure to inappropriate or harmful content delivered via such devices. So the purpose of this bill is essentially to protect minors from damaging content so delivered, and this purpose is to be achieved by way of a coregulatory approach on the part of government and industry participants. It will also see amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999.

Labor supports the general intent of the bill. Labor has stated unequivocally that the protection of children from exposure to violent, pornographic, harmful and otherwise inappropriate material, whether via the internet or other convergent technologies, is paramount. Labor is committed to the protection of minors from damaging online content. All present in this place recognise the common ground on which this commitment is based: that young and vulnerable children must be protected from inappropriate and harmful content available on the internet and via mobile phones and other technologies.

This bill is based on the premise that clearly consumers are increasingly accessing avenues of information and entertainment through mobile phones and subscription internet sites. Mobile phones and other hand-held devices offer access to a range of media-rich services, including broadcasting, internet and telephone content. The scale of these related technologies is demonstrated by international research which, on the most recent data, puts the number of mobile phone subscribers globally at in excess of two billion; and the most recent data for mobile phone subscribers in Australia estimates the number to be more than 18 million. The adoption rate has been phenomenal, providing users with access to music, video, games, internet, SMS and video messages, to name just a few. In relation to the internet, there are in Australia 6.43 million active internet subscribers. A breakdown of this figure shows there are 761,000 business and government subscribers—this is subscribers, not users—and more than 5.6 million households that subscribe to the internet, with a varying number of users in each household having access to live streamed videos, chat rooms, blogs, video-file sharing and virtual worlds.

The benefits of such services to consumers and, through the creation of new commercial potentials, to carriage service providers and content service providers are enormous. There is also enormous potential for the dissemination of harmful, exploitative or otherwise offensive material, particularly to minors. Gone are the days when parents simply changed channels or turned off the television or radio if they considered broadcast material to be inappropriate in the context of their particular family circumstances and values.

This bill establishes a framework where content will be prohibited over the internet and on other convergent devices under certain circumstances including: when it has been classified RC or X18+ by the Classification Board; when it has been classified R18+ and access to it is not subject to an age verification system; and when it has been classified MA15+ and it has been provided by a commercial content provider, but it is not a news or a current affairs service, or it does not consist of text or still images, and it is not subject to an age verification system. This bill proposes that when such ephemeral content is accessed on a commercial basis it should be regulated via mechanisms that include pre-provision assessment, access restrictions or outright prohibition, and complaints protocols. Stored content will be similarly liable to regulation. There will be a significantly expanded role for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to include registration and approval of industry codes of practice, the determination of industry standards and service provider rules and the potential for imposition of penalties should a content provider fail to comply with a notice issued by the authority.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, which was recently charged with the role of examining this bill, accurately stated that industry and consumer groups that furnished submissions to its inquiry were generally supportive of the bill’s intent; however, it is important to note that each of these submissions articulated significant and specific concerns as to the bill’s terms and/or likely effect. Some submissions opposed the bill on civil liberties grounds or on the basis of general policy differences. Another submission looked to the needs of artists in setting out its concerns regarding the ambit of the proposed provisions. It submitted that the bill did not adequately take into account the needs of filmmakers and multimedia and digital artists.

ALP senators submitted a minority report highlighting some of the major concerns. They identified a number of issues, including the fact that the bill does not prevent prohibited material from being accessed through overseas content providers. A further issue was that content classified MA15+, which is now accessible to those aged 15 and over—for example, in movie previews—cannot be accessed from an Australian website without age verification. This would of course be problematic for minors between 15 and 17 years of age because credit cards are not available to those under the age of 18. A method of age verification would therefore need to be established. Other issues included: the fact that the bill would extend a prohibition to material rated RC and X18+, which would mean that this material could not be watched on the internet despite the fact that it would be legally available in some jurisdictions and could be legally purchased from other jurisdictions via mail order; that consultation with makers of content appeared to have been deficient; that there would be the potential for discrimination against artists using the convergent technologies for the creation and dissemination of artistic works including video art work, web and sound art, and short films; that the proposed mechanisms for furnishing a take-down notice to a hosting service that was hosting or was proposing to host content that was the same or largely similar to that identified in the notice, in their present form, would not be sufficiently certain for both the regulator and hosting services; that the reference to the provision of trained content assessors raised related questions as to the type and level of training required, the cost that would have to be borne and by what mechanism the cost would be met; and that the definition of ‘content service’, with its exemptions, is confusing and appears to confuse the roles of content service provider and of content carriage provider.

Labor support the intent of this bill but we are concerned that it may not be as effective as intended. It may also provide parents with a false sense of security because the bill only prevents children from accessing prohibited or potentially prohibited content when it is hosted on Australian sites. For children to be adequately protected today from accessing prohibited or potentially prohibited material via the internet, we must consider content filtering. Labor considers that this bill does not go far enough. Labor believes that we should make use of the available tools—including the use of internet service provider filtering—to protect Australian children from exposure to harmful and inappropriate internet content. A clean feed filtering service to homes, schools and public libraries can filter out Australian and overseas sites containing content that is harmful or inappropriate.

In conclusion, I draw attention to the fact that once again—as has so often been the case—Labor senators have formed the view, from the evidence, that submitting organisations were not allowed sufficient time to formulate and to furnish their views on the proposed provisions. Once again, this unseemly haste in dealing with a matter of significant complexity and importance demonstrates the government’s reckless and—if it is possible—increasingly blatant obsession with ensuring that its bills are passed without the benefit of proper and comprehensive external scrutiny. While Labor supports the intent of the bill, we emphasise the importance of realising that intent via a sound and reliable legislative framework.