Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Hansard source

In line with general business notice of motion No. 386 given yesterday, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021, which was completed in October 2024, remains unimplemented by the Government;

(b) further notes that the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021 found that the eSafety Commissioner is ill-equipped to protect the Australian women and girls who are subjected to harassment, abuse and cyberbullying on a daily basis; and

(c) calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021.

Colleagues, imagine waking up to find your face circulating online, not in a family photo, not in a news article, not making headlines, but in a pornographic deepfake. You open your inbox and read, 'We are going to rape you. My bat is going to fit nicely in your skull. I will cut off your throat.' Your home address is published. Your family's names are circulated. Images appear of you hanging in a noose and a gun pointed to your head. You call the police, you are told it is serious, you attend a station, you are handed a pamphlet, you contact the cyber security hotline, you are referred back, you contact the eSafety Commissioner and you are told that this does not meet the threshold. That was the experience of Perth activists Caitlin Roper and Lyn Kennedy. It was the experience of women who campaigned against video games that simulated rape. After more than 20,000 games were removed, the backlash came—coordinated, sustained and vicious—with threats to rape, threats to kill, deepfake pornography, doxxing. And when they sought help, they were told that the law could not act.

That is not a failure of effort by the police or regulators; it is a failure of the threshold set by this parliament. The statutory review of the Online Safety Act delivered in October 2024 found that the adult cyberabuse scheme is not fit for purpose. Only around six per cent of reports to the scheme meet the current legislated threshold—that's six per cent. When 94 per cent of Australians who report abuse are told, 'It does not qualify for removal,' we must ask whether we have set the bar too high for a civil take-down regime. Under the current law an ordinary, reasonable person must conclude the material was intended to cause serious harm to an Australian adult before eSafety can act. Serious harm—that may be an appropriate standard in a criminal prosecution, but the adult cyber scheme is not about imprisonment; it is about removing menacing, harassing and abusive content from public circulation. Requiring proof of serious harm in that context has been proven disproportionately difficult. The review made a clear recommendation: lower the threshold.

Yesterday I introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026, which implements recommendation 18. It recalibrates the test so that an ordinary, reasonable person must conclude it is likely the material was intended to have an effect on a particular Australian adult and the material is, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or seriously offensive. At the same time, the seriousness requirement is strengthened. Material must not be merely offensive; it must be seriously offensive, representing a significant departure from the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. This is rebalancing that we need. It lowers one limb and raises another. It maintains an objective test, and that's what experts have been calling for. It preserves safeguards. It ensures that the scheme catches genuinely harmful conduct without sweeping in robust debate.

Colleagues, this is not theoretical or fanciful. We know from eSafety's own research that 70 per cent of adults have had at least one negative online experience in the past year. Women, First Nations Australians, culturally diverse communities, LGBTQI Australians and people with disability are disproportionately targeted. Organisations across this country see the consequences every single day. Phoenix Australia works with victims of sexual trauma, including those who experience sustained harassment and threats that create ongoing psychological harm. Women's legal services report increasing numbers of clients whose online abuse escalates into fear for their safety. Headspace and Lifeline speak about the impact of digital harassment on young people's mental health. And mental health organisations are telling us, time and time again, that online abuse is not just words on the screen. It has real-world consequences in the form of anxiety, hypervigilance, depression and withdrawal from public life. Advocacy organisations such as Collective Shout have warned that women are increasingly silenced by fear. Disability advocates speak about targeted harassment campaigns designed to exhaust and intimidate people.

This is the environment that Australians are navigating every single day—and I know what it's like to stand in that environment. Nearly two years ago, I crossed the floor of the Senate chamber on a matter of conscience. I knew it would generate anger, but I did not anticipate the volume and persistence of the threats that have since followed. You can grow accustomed to the criticism because it's just part of public life, but what you do not grow accustomed to are the threats to kill you or threats against your husband, your five-year-old nephew or even your British short-hair kitten, or messages describing how someone will shoot you. The routine contact with the Australian Federal Police about individuals making credible threats is not just exhausting; it's time consuming and it's something that we should never have to subject our teams and our officers to. The vicarious trauma that impacts our staff is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

Going back to the online world, it's not abstract when you see your address circulating or your family members' names mentioned. This isn't about politicians feeling uncomfortable; it's a broader pattern of behaviour that we're seeing. It's disproportionately affecting women, especially those who choose or have the bravery to speak up.

When Caitlin Roper told my office that eSafety dismissed the material because it referred to an organisation rather than an individual, even where individuals were specifically tagged in threats to murder them, it exposed how the current threshold can operate in practice. The regulator is constrained by the legislation we have written, so, if we want a different outcome, we must change the law. The amendments in the bill do not criminalise speech or the freedom of speech. They do not remove the reasonable-person test. They do not eliminate safeguards. They are just the threshold so that the targeted abuse can be addressed before it escalates further.

The amendments also apply to material provided before commencement. Again, this does not create criminal liability. It simply enables the regulator to issue takedown notices for material that meets the recalibrated threshold regardless of when it was posted. Again, we see that as a protective measure rather than a punitive measure.

Freedom of expression is fundamental, and it is protected under article 19 of the ICCPR, but it is not absolute. The same covenant recognises that restrictions may be imposed where necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and reputations of others—the right to dignity, the right to safety and the right not to be subjected to unlawful attacks on honour and reputation. I see this bill as being proportionate. It maintains a high seriousness bar. It ensures that only material representing a significant departure from accepted standards is captured.

I implore each and every one of you to look into the bill that I introduced yesterday. In three months time, I will become a mother, and I will bring a baby girl into this world. I think often about the world she will grow up in. Will she feel that participating in public debate is worth the risk? Will she believe that her voice matters? Will she inherit an online environment where threats of rape and violence are dismissed as the cost of speaking up, or will she grow up in a society that clearly says, 'This crosses a line'?

We cannot control every individual who hides behind a screen and acts as a keyboard warrior. We cannot control every individual who hides their identity and continues perpetrating the harassment online. But we can ensure that our laws reflect the reality of digital life. We can ensure that, when someone reports targeted abuse, they're not turned away because the threshold is unrealistically high for a civil scheme. We can ensure that our regulator has the tools necessary to act.

We often speak in this chamber about the kind of country we want to build together. We speak about respect, equality and safety. The online world is no longer separate from the real world. It shapes reputations, careers, relationships and mental health. When threats to rape and kill are normalised in comment sections, when deepfake pornography circulates without consequence and when victims are handed pamphlets instead of protection, trust in institutions erodes.

The statutory review has given us a road map. The recommendation is clear. The evidence is compelling. The harm is real, and the experts have been speaking to us and making sure that we understand that this will not just go away. The bill I introduced yesterday, like I said, is proportionate, it's measured, and it's evidence based. It ensures that the adult cyberabuse scheme functions as intended, and it sends a signal that this parliament will not ignore the lived experience of targeted online abuse.

Colleagues, we have a responsibility to consider what kind of digital environment we are shaping. In three months time, when I look at my little baby girl, I want to be able to tell her that, when women are being silenced by threats and intimidation, this parliament did not look away. I want to tell her that we chose dignity over indifference, that we chose protection over paralysis, that together we chose to act to stamp out this harassment and abuse. I commend the motion to the Senate, and I urge each and every one of my colleagues to support the passage of the bill when it comes to be debated in the future. Thank you.