Senator MARK BISHOP (1:13 PM) —On 19 March this year, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts announced that the government proposed to legislate to regulate Internet content. The opposition, through the medium of the shadow minister for communications, responded at that time in the following terms and made three key points. Firstly, the opposition supported workable and feasible regulation of Internet content which placed realistic road blocks in the way of children being exposed to content unacceptable by community standards.

Secondly, the government's announced proposal was duplicitous because it was not being proposed on its merits but rather to gather support for unrelated government legislation, in particular Telstra privatisation legislation. It deliberately sought to create the impression that the government's announced measure would solve the problem of unacceptable content when the reality is, backed by CSIRO advice and industry analysis, that it is not feasible to regulate such content as over 90 per cent of Internet content is sourced from offshore. Thirdly, the sensible public policy approach to Internet content is to empower parents and schools, particularly by way of information about end use filter devices.

On 21 April this year, the government introduced into the Senate the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 with a view to the legislation being dealt with by the Senate before 1 July this year. In the meantime, at the request of Senator Harradine, the government re-established the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies with a view to the current bill being referred to and examined in detail by that committee.

The bill was referred and over 20 hours of public hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. During those hearings, the committee received 104 submissions and heard from 33 witnesses in total. Those witnesses were industry associations, government departments, regulatory agencies, private firms, consumer associations and a range of interest groups with particular perspectives in this debate. Those groups included the Australian Library and Information Association, the CSIRO, Young Media Australia, the Eros Foundation, Australia Online, the Internet Industry Association, NOIE, the Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Australian Information Industry Association. The report of the Senate select committee was tabled in this place on Tuesday, 12 May.

On the introduction of the bill, the opposition indicated its intent to conduct a detailed examination of the legislation throughout the committee process. That intent was carried out and the opposition tabled a significant minority report addressing the following points: firstly, the opposition's approach to Internet regulation; secondly, the need for sensible measures to limit the access of children to harmful material; thirdly, our disappointment at the duplicitous and disruptive approach adopted by the government to this important legislation; and, fourthly, the failure of the government to squarely address the issue that the bill does not solve the problem that the vast majority of offensive material is hosted offshore and hence escapes any regulation by the bill.

A brief description of the legislation is appropriate at this stage. The legislation seeks to regulate content on the Internet through amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act. The legislation introduces a content rating regime for the Internet analogous to that in existence for broadcast and narrowcast technology and it requires the industry to develop an industry code of conduct to address the issue. The legislation empowers the Australian Broadcasting Authority to oversee regulation and adherence to the code and to develop an ABA standard by 1 March 2000 if an industry code is not ratified by 1 January 2000.

The legislation effects a process by which the ABA, on complaint about material, can require Internet service providers to take down X or refused classification rated material hosted onshore and to take all reasonable steps to prevent access to X or refused classification rated material hosted offshore. In respect of R classified onshore content, the ABA must be satisfied that restricted access arrangements, for example, PIN, password or age verifications, are in place. No proposal is made in respect of offshore classified R material. The bill specifies time frames for the take down process and penalties for non-compliance. The bill expressly does not apply to live Internet content such as news groups, chat channels or email.

Initial industry reaction to the legislation can be described as hostile. Major criticisms by industry have included the following: that content regulation is inappropriate for the Internet medium and that, as a matter of principle, there should be no restrictions at all on Internet content; that proposals in respect of offshore content regulation are unworkable; that the proposals would place an onerous economic burden on Internet service providers; and that the proposals would reduce or destroy Australia's attractiveness as an Internet e-commerce jurisdiction.

Following the introduction of the bill and examination of the explanatory memorandum, the opposition identified eight key matters to serve as a framework for ongoing analysis of the bill. The first matter is the duplicity of the government's approach in two key respects: firstly, the linkage to the Telstra legislation; secondly, in respect of the government's public presentation, that the legislation—the bill itself—would, without more, solve the problem. This was, and clearly is, incorrect. For the government to have made this a major policy proposal and to continue to spread disinformation that the bill, if passed substantially in its current form, will solve the problem of children and others gaining access to material that is generally regarded by the community as being offensive or undesirable is a bold-faced lie—a lie that should not be allowed to remain unchallenged in this chamber.

The bill does not solve the problem of offensive material coming from offshore because 90 per cent of that material does come from offshore and this bill does not apply to it. The second key matter that we have adopted is that, in principle, the notion of Internet content regulation would be agreed, but only that which is technically feasible and not so onerous as to reduce the attractiveness of Australia as an Internet industry, e-commerce jurisdiction.

The third principle is the viability and effectiveness of Internet service provider filter arrangements. The fourth principle is the lack of viability of offshore content regulation and the fifth is to support an industry based and industry agreed code of practice as a regulatory vehicle in conjunction with the legislation. The sixth point is to note, for the moment, the government's application of the narrowcasting/broadcasting classification regime for the purposes of the current bill, knowing that decisions might have to be revisited in the future as technology and Internet use develops and spreads. The seventh key point is that an effective and realistic content regulation solution requires the education and improvement of end users, particularly by way of end use filter devices. The eighth and final principle that we have adopted is the need for active government pursuit of international activity and international agreements to address the issue of Internet content coming from offshore into this country.

Industry reaction to the detail of the legislation during the select committee hearings was critical of the short time periods for effective consultation and hostile to much of the ineffective content in the bill. Particular detailed criticisms made at public hearings and via written submissions included that the 24-hour take-down period for offshore content was far too short; the penalty regime of 50 penalty units per day per continuing breach was simply too punitive; and the legislation did not expressly specify what `all reasonable steps' were required to be taken in respect of offshore content.

The opposition will move a second reading amendment addressing our concerns and reservations. The first of these is that the legislation is not being dealt with on its merits, but is linked to a 1 July 1999 timetable, which has caused indecent haste and inadequate consideration of the content of the bill. The second is the duplicity of the government in its presentation to the general public of the effectiveness of its regime to control offshore content—in particular, that the bill deliberately tricks mums and dads. The third is the unworkability of the proposals and the ease with which they can be bypassed. The fourth is to note, but not to unthinkingly accept, the broadcasting or narrowcasting classification regime in respect of the Internet medium, together with an acknowledgment that this may well have to be revisited in the future, particularly in light of whatever changes convergence of technology might bring. Our fifth concern is the need for the Commonwealth to pursue international arrangements in respect of Internet content regulations. The final point we will address in that second reading amendment is that the real solution to the mischief at hand is end use empowerment, which requires an extensive education and information campaign for parents, guardians and schools in respect of the use of the Internet and end use filter devices.

The opposition will move a series of amendments in the committee stage. The first is that the 24-hour take-down period be extended to 48 hours and apply only after a process of real and effective notification of the relevant breach. The second is that the focus of the proposed penalty regime be directed towards deliberate and informed breaches of the act, that is, those breaches that are taken with full knowledge of the act. The third is that `all reasonable steps' be expressly defined to include end use empowerment, information provision and advice on culturally appropriate end use filter devices, and that such reasonable steps generally be technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective. The fourth is for the ABA to take into account the public interest in not requiring unreasonable steps that would reduce national Internet capacity. The fifth is that the ABA take into account the public interest in ensuring that Australia remains an attractive Internet e-commerce investment jurisdiction by not requiring measures that would unreasonably degrade Internet capacity or utility. The final amendment to be moved by the opposition is that, after an appropriate period of the operation of the legislation, a review of the legislation be allowed, which is itself to be subject to a three-year sunset clause.

So the position of the opposition has been clear from the outset. We do not believe that the government has been sufficiently honest in its approach to this bill. I cannot recall when such an important bill has been the subject of such ongoing and continuing haste. The Internet as a medium introduces new and novel forms of communication. It opens the whole world and copious amounts of information to any person in Australia who can operate a computer. Businesses, consumers, parents and guardians are all caught up in its operation. Real issues of equity have not been considered, let alone discussed or debated, and will not be discussed or debated as we go through the committee stages of this bill.

Many persons in Australia—many parents—are still uncomfortable with the use of technology and the immediate spread of technology into their homes. My own two daughters, aged eight and 11, have regular training and instruction at their schools on computers, IT and the Internet. My children—as do nearly all children—love the ease with which they can gain access to information. Even local libraries now provide relatively easy access to the Internet.

Many parents, though, are uncomfortable with some of these developments. They may not be as computer literate as they would like to be. They are often not aware of the range of material that is readily accessible. They have not had the opportunity to be trained or become familiar with the use of the Internet and associated technology.

Senator Tierney —How are you going to fix that?

Senator MARK BISHOP —Equity issues are still ignored by this bill. A decent computer and printer still costs in the order of $2,000. For parents with children who spend all of their income on the basics of life, access to the Internet, even if desired, is still often cost prohibitive. A glaring omission of this bill is the lack of resource allocation for parent empowerment and community awareness.

Nearly every witness to the Senate IT committee proceedings impressed upon the committee the urgent need for parental education and community awareness. The explanatory memorandum identifies that the government has allocated only $1.9 million for the framework administration of this bill. Of that $1.9 million, nearly three-quarters, or $1.5 million per annum, will be allocated for classifications by the classification board. Only $500,000 is allocated for community awareness and industry liaison. That figure of half a million dollars can be contrasted to the allocation of nearly $20 million to sell the government's new tax package prior to the last election. Significant upgrading of that figure of half a million dollars for industry liaison, parent empowerment and community awareness would have the capacity to greatly assist Australian parents and those bodies which carry out de facto supervisory role of children. Despite being pressed in the committee stages, the government refuses to increase that amount or outline the detail of any plans or programs it might have to carry out important community awareness raising.

The opposition does not suggest this needs to be done for all time. A significant upgrading of resource allocation for a defined period of time will probably do the trick. The opposition urges the government to reconsider this aspect of funding because it has the capacity to immediately and greatly assist Australian families and Australian parents.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I take advice whether it is adequate to move the second reading amendment that has been circulated. I so move:

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate expresses its concern that:

(a) the legislation is being dealt with in indecent haste and with inadequate consideration;

(b) the Government's claim that the legislation will `solve the problem' of unacceptable content is not supported by the reality that the vast bulk of internet content is generated outside Australia;

(c) the proposals, including the idea of mandatory internet service provider filters, are unworkable and easily by-passed;

(d) the application of the narrowcasting classification regime to the regulation of internet content has not been thoroughly analysed and may well require revisiting in the future, in view of rapidly changing and converging technology;

(e) efforts should be made by the Government to pursue international agreements on the regulation of internet content;

(f) substantially more emphasis should be placed on end-user empowerment through information and education campaigns for parents, schools and guardians about the use of the internet and of end-user filter devices; and

(g) the legislation does not include a sunset clause, or provision for review, given the speed of technological change in this area".

Finally, I should advise that the opposition has tabled a series of amendments and authorises circulation of those amendments in the chamber.