Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

To be cooperative I shall endeavour to be brief. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 is a complex bill, as is often the case with this sort of regulatory framework, and because of time constraints I will not go into as much detail as I normally would. Everybody knows the history of this legislation, the genesis behind it and the need to try to regulate content services delivered over convergent devices such as broadband services to mobile handsets et cetera. There are a few key questions here. The first is: do we need to have a regulatory framework over those sorts of material and these sorts of devices? Given that we already have a regulatory framework in place, it seems reasonable to seek to extend the regulatory framework to other devices that are currently exempt from it.

The second question is whether the approach that has been put forward will work. That is a much more open question. Certainly there is a lot of strong opinion, some of which was put to the Senate inquiry, that suggests that the current setup with regard to the internet does not work terribly well. There is a very valid argument that having a framework in place gives people the assumption that content can be adequately controlled and contained, whether it is pornography, violence or other sorts of inappropriate material. If we have that framework there people assume that that means there are controls in place to regulate it adequately. If those controls do not actually work terribly effectively, then that can be counterproductive. People assume there is an effective mechanism in place and do not worry about doing anything further about it. If the mechanism does not actually work adequately, then not only does it not necessarily perform the task that it is intended for but it can create a false impression of security. There is a bit of an open debate there about how adequately it works and whether its inadequacies or limitations are such as to discredit the whole system.

That same debate can be carried over to the approach and mechanism that is being put forward here in this legislation. As I have stated, there are arguments on both sides with regard to that, and the workability is an issue as much as the principles behind it. Certainly some within the community and some who put forward submissions to the inquiry suggested that there were issues with regard to constraints on freedom of speech. That is an issued the Democrats have always taken very seriously.

We have always had a general approach that seeks to encourage minimum necessary censorship, but minimum necessary censorship does not mean no constraints or controls at all. Of course, there is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. Article 19 states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

And:

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;

But it should be emphasised that part of that article 19 of the convention also says that the right in paragraph 2:

... carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

Certainly we already as a parliament and I think as a community more broadly strongly support constraints on freedom of speech in regard to certain types of advertising—for example, cigarette advertising. Indeed, the Democrats pioneered greater controls and constraints on cigarette advertising. I think we could go a little bit further, frankly, in terms of cigarette sponsorship and those sorts of things. So our own approach has shown that we also support limitations on those rights at certain times. I do think that needs to be emphasised.

A lot of the focus around this is on pornography, and that always excites people a lot and generates a lot of debate around the place. I am much more concerned about the degree of violence that is on a lot of standard forms of the media, let alone convergent media. But there certainly are issues. In the same way as most people would believe that exposure of children to excessive violence is potentially harmful, exposure of children to explicit pornography is also potentially harmful. There is a case to be made. But the big question mark is whether or not the framework that is in place here will work adequately to enable that to happen. In large part it tacks itself onto the existing framework, so whatever limitations there are or are not on the existing framework are to some extent added to by the new framework and the new components that are put in place through this legislation.

As we are dealing with convergent and developing technology, it also means that we are continually having to assess how workable it is and continuing to play catch-up. It is certainly an area that will need continual monitoring. That is something that is necessary. The other thing that needs monitoring is the issues surrounding the wisdom or otherwise of how expansive a level of access we allow to some of the material and certain types of material that this framework seeks to regulate. Where do we draw those lines? I guess that is the ongoing debate that we need to have.