Senate debates

Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007

Second Reading

6:23 pm

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007, which brings with it amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The bill is far-reaching in both its intent and its design, and it builds on the government’s Online Content Scheme. It attempts to address community concerns about the ability of current regulation to prevent children and others from viewing harmful or inappropriate content over the internet and convergent technologies. In doing so, this bill attempts to draw together and address some of the key issues in Australia today: technology, how that technology is used and how to prevent it from adversely affecting our children.

This is no small task. Technology evolves rapidly. Mobile phones came into popular use in the early to mid-1990s. Since that time, they have become smaller and ‘smarter’. In addition to making telephone calls, mobile phones, in many instances, now allow users to browse the internet, take photos, send emails or listen to music. Similarly, the internet is another piece of modern technology that came into popular use in the early to mid-1990s and has evolved rapidly since that time. Over the last decade or more, the internet has opened viewers up to a world of entertainment such as live streamed videos, blogs, chat rooms, video file-sharing and virtual worlds, to name but a few. Such technology has delivered a great many benefits to society and to economies the world over. However, given the nature of the internet and the ability of users today to browse content on their computer or mobile phone on any conceivable subject, there is concern that some users—in particular, children—may be exposed to inappropriate and/or harmful material in doing so.

This bill aims to protect children from exposure to inappropriate and harmful material by regulating content services delivered over the internet and by convergent devices, such as 3G mobile phones. Labor supports the intent of this bill. Children are one of society’s most important assets and deserve our protection. Under the proposed framework set out in the bill, content must not be delivered or made available to the public where it is prohibited or potentially prohibited or must not be made available without the appropriate age verification systems, where they are required. Content will be prohibited over the internet and on other convergent devices if it has been classified RC or X18+ by the Classification Board; if it has been classified R18+ and access is not subject to an age verification system; and if it has been classified MA15+, is provided by a commercial content provider—but is not a news or current affairs service—does not consist of text or still images and is not subject to an age verification system. Content will be potentially prohibited content if it has not been classified by the Classification Board. However, if it were to be classified, there is a substantial likelihood that it would be prohibited content. These prohibitions and limitations also apply to live content streamed over the internet or other convergent devices. Content provided by commercial content providers that is yet to be classified must be assessed prior to it being provided by a trained content assessor. The trained content assessor must advise whether the service might be prohibited, and the service provider must then take the appropriate action or face penalties under the bill.

The aim of the bill, then, is clearly to make sure that children and other users of the internet and convergent technologies will not be subjected to prohibited, or potentially prohibited, content. The bill also acts to greatly expand the role of ACMA. Drawing on the ‘take-down model’ set out in the Online Content Scheme, the bill provides that ACMA may issue service providers with a take-down notice where service providers are hosting prohibited content in breach of the bill. The take-down notice directs the service provider to remove the prohibited content. Where a service provider broadcasts potentially prohibited content, ACMA may issue it with an interim take-down notice. An interim take-down notice directs the service provider to remove the potentially prohibited content until the Classification Board has classified the material. If the material is subsequently classified by the Classification Board as prohibited content, ACMA may issue the service provider with a final take-down notice. ACMA may also issue a service provider that has been the subject of an interim or final take-down notice with a special take-down notice where it is concerned that the service provider is hosting, or is intending to host, content that is the same as, or similar to, the earlier prohibited content.

Further, in the case of a service provider broadcasting prohibited or potentially prohibited live content, ACMA may issue it with an interim or final service-cessation notice. In the case of a service provider with an Australian connection hosting links to prohibited sites, ACMA may issue it with an interim or final links-deletion notice. Where a service provider fails to comply with a notice issued by ACMA under the bill, it may face civil or criminal penalties.

The bill continues the co-regulatory approach adopted by the government in relation to broadcasting services. Under the bill, content providers should develop codes of practice to address the means by which they will endeavour to meet their regulatory obligations. ACMA should make reasonable efforts to ensure that the codes are registered. ACMA may also step in where it considers industry codes are necessary to safeguard the community or deal with the conduct or performance of particular participants in the industry. Under the bill, complaints about content may be made to ACMA. ACMA will investigate any complaints made in relation to breaches of the bill as well as possible breaches of the code of practice requirements. ACMA may also launch investigations on its own initiative into issues such as access to, or provision of, certain content. Service providers may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of decisions of ACMA related to take-down notices, service cessation notices, link deletion notices, the registration of industry codes and certain directions and determinations.

As I have stated, Labor supports the intent of this bill. Labor recognises that children are one of society’s most important assets. The things children see and experience today shape their future life experiences. Accordingly, Labor wishes for Australian children to have positive learning experiences so that they grow up to be confident and enriched young adults. It is for this reason that Labor is concerned that this bill, while espousing to protect children from harmful and inappropriate material, may not have its intended effect. Labor’s concern is that this bill is misleading Australian parents. The bill does prevent children from accessing prohibited or potentially prohibited content, but only when the prohibited or potentially prohibited content is hosted on an Australian site.

This bill does not protect children—or indeed anyone—from accessing harmful or inappropriate content from overseas content providers. As the internet is a global system, accessing such material, even with this bill in place, will be as simple as the touch of a few buttons. As such, this bill clearly falls short of its intended goal. The only way to truly protect children from accessing such material is by way of content filtering.

Labor has long supported ISP filtering as a means by which to protect Australian children from harmful or inappropriate content. A clean-feed filtering service to all households, schools and public libraries can filter out sites that contain harmful or inappropriate content such as pornography and violent material. As such, under a clean-feed filtering system, children will be protected from accessing inappropriate or harmful material hosted on both Australian and overseas sites.

Labor is also concerned that this bill poses an unnecessary restriction on content creators such as artists. Many artists today choose to use the internet or convergent technologies either as an artistic medium or as a means by which to disseminate their work. Many of these artists also create works that are thought provoking or even controversial and on subjects that may be considered prohibited or potentially prohibited content under this bill. Accordingly, this bill may unnecessarily censor artists using this medium. It would appear that the government did not adequately consult with content creators, such as artists, prior to the drafting of this bill. As a result, the bill may serve to disadvantage them. Australia has a thriving creative community. The potential impact of this bill upon the work of these artists and their livelihoods cannot and should not be overlooked.

It is for these reasons that Labor seeks to move a second reading amendment to this bill. Labor’s amendment intends to note the deficiencies in the bill which, while not fatal, have serious implications. Most notably, the bill will not protect children from accessing inappropriate or harmful material from sites hosted in countries other than Australia. The internet is a truly global network. Therefore, attempting, as this bill does, to regulate Australian content will have little impact when sites from other countries remain available for users to browse.

The internet and convergent technology such as 3G mobile phones have undoubtedly changed the way in which we communicate to others and also serve to act as new forums for entertainment. In today’s society, the use of such technology is growing. Labor, therefore, considers that it is in the interests of all Australians for the government to ensure that any regulation that may interfere with this technology, or how it is used, reflects the intent of the government in whole and not in part. I move:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate notes that:

             (a)    the Government failed to adequately consult content makers prior to the drafting of the bill;

             (b)    the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee inquiry into the bill did not allow for sufficient time to consider the bill and draft submissions to the committee;     

             (c)    the bill will not prevent access to prohibited material from offshore service providers; and

             (d)    Labor believes that children should be protected from inappropriate or harmful material on the internet, however, Labor would prefer to regulate for this via ISP filtering, as set out in Labor’s ISP filtering policy”.

Comments

No comments