Senator SCHACHT (7:35 PM) —I rise to speak as part of the opposition's response to what is a very quick bill—poorly drafted and brought in here with undue haste. A number of senators were on the committee examining this bill, and they brought down the report which was tabled earlier this month. I congratulate them on grappling with the number of issues in the short time they were given. The issues in the report only begin the debate; they do not conclude the debate.

The opposition has already made it clear that we believe this bill is fundamentally flawed and that it should be significantly amended. My colleague Senator Bishop has indicated the moving of a second reading amendment that reflects our grave concerns about the sloppy way in which this bill has been brought forward and drafted. We have also indicated there will be a number of other technical amendments to the provisions. Some of the draconian provisions in this bill should be amended.

We have outlined that we would support a review of the bill, if it were to be carried by the Senate, and a sunset clause that this bill would last no more than three years and that it would lapse unless the Senate and the Australian parliament reintroduced a bill after ministerial review and further debate. The opposition has made it clear that, in relation to the Internet and all the ancillary services it provides, it is crazy to try to define legislation to regulate the Internet forever and a day when the technology is changing so rapidly.

Earlier today I heard some remarks by Senator Tierney from the government. We know Senator Tierney has a particular obsession about the fact that new technologies may actually make it easier for some people to see something that is, in his view, in bad taste or that does not fit into his moral view of the world. After listening to Senator Tierney I am of the mind that, when someone invented writing 3,000 or 4,000 years ago in the ancient Sumerian civilisation, he would have been up there saying, `This is terrible. It might be misused. Someone might write a word that I do not like.'

When William Caxton and Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 15th century, which enabled many more people to have access to information, of course it could have been misused and things could have been written that Senator Tierney might not like or might disapprove of. He, again, would have been one of those saying, `This is an evil development.' There were people who were opposed to the development of the printing press and its use to make widespread information available, to make our society in those days better informed. Senator Tierney probably disliked the invention of the telephone because it meant people could ring each other—they might say something over the phone in a form of words that he finds distasteful.

The whole range of the electronic developments in communications this century—radio, television, cinema—has probably put great stress on Senator Tierney that somewhere someone might have seen or heard something that he finds distasteful or does not fit his moral view of the world. About 15 years ago we had the development of the fax—again, rapid information dissemination, better communication. Again, someone might put an inappropriate word or drawing through the fax that he does not like in his view of the world.

Now we have the Internet, the most revolutionary form of direct communication between people that the world has yet seen. It has many opportunities to make the world a better place, to make it less likely that people will go to war because they will be better able to communicate. Societies will have a better understanding and information readily available about themselves. But the only obsession Senator Tierney and those of his ilk have is that there may be some inappropriate words, some nasty pictures or some nasty images that go on the Internet that do not fit with their moral view of the world.

On every one of those developments in the last 4,000 years of new technologies that have improved communication in the world, there has always been, unfortunately, some antisocial activity that has gone with it. But, if we had stopped each of those developments, modern civilisation as we know it would never have developed.

I also want to point out to Senator Tierney and others like him that the Internet is probably now the strongest proponent for the development of human rights and the end of dictatorships and thuggery by governments around the world than any other invention we have since had. It is now impossible for a bunch of thugs of the far Right or the far Left to run a government and keep their people ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world. The Internet is the final step in breaking down the censorship barriers, the government censorship of ideas, the organisation of ideas that are allowed only if they are in favour of the government of the day or the ruling elite or clique.

I remember in 1989 at the time of Tiananmen Square that the Chinese tried to ban or control access to the fax machine because they discovered that all round the world people at random, including people from this Parliament House, were faxing stories out of their local newspapers to Chinese fax machines showing that they knew what was going on and so those in the pro democracy movement knew that they were being supported. What did the Chinese government try to do? They tried to register every fax machine to make sure that only people whom they approved of would be able to use it. It all collapsed, of course, because they found that their economy could not run on the idea that they could control people who have access to these new communication ideas.

It is the same with the Internet. The political thugs of the world now find it extremely difficult to control the ideas and information. In recent times in Yugoslavia Mr Milosevic has found that he cannot control all the information being circulated in his own country because others from without can circulate into that country via the Internet other stories that give a differing view from what Mr Milosevic wants.

Some time ago, at the time of a previous censorship debate in Australia, a rather famous poster was put out. It said, `The experts agree censorship works,' and it listed Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini—they tried to use censorship to control their people. We have to accept that there is going to be some awkward or some nasty use of these modern forms of telecommunications and communication such as the Internet, but we should not throw it out. We should not stop it. We should not cut the cable. We should not try to censor it absolutely on the basis that we may be worried that somewhere someone will be upset about a particular image.

What we find extraordinary about this piece of legislation is that it has been rushed into the parliament, badly drafted and badly explained, to meet some sort of agenda of the coalition government. One has only to turn to the second reading speech by the minister to see that. It goes on for pages trying to explain how these new measures will work to control antisocial, nasty things on the Internet. There are pages about how the complaints will be handled. There are pages about how the coregulation will work, about the codes of practice, about how you would lodge a notice with the ABA and about the different responsibilities of the ABA and the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

Anyone who reads the second reading speech and believes that this legislation is going to be anything other than a bureaucratic nightmare is deluding himself or herself. Those people who want to use the Internet for antisocial reasons will not be controlled by this legislation—there are 100 ways around it—but the decent people trying to develop the Internet and to encourage the development of Australia as a clever country will be held down by it. They will be driven crazy by some of these useless, unworkable regulations. As I say, the second reading speech goes on for pages trying to explain how the legislation will work. It will not work simply; it will work in a convoluted, difficult way.

We will be moving amendments to simplify the bill and in particular the sunset clause. My view is that if the sensible amendments—including the sunset clause—to be moved by the opposition are not accepted by the government then this bill should be rejected at the third reading. I believe that will overwhelm ingly be welcomed by the vast majority of Australians who do not like the idea that the state or a government with a narrow-minded view should interfere with their rights.

I want to refer to the fact that, since the 1971 national conference of the Labor Party, we have had a very important clause to refer to when deciding the policy of the Labor Party in respect of censorship. This clause was drafted by Gough Whitlam, Don Dunstan and Lionel Murphy. It has stood the test of time in determining the balance between the rights of society to protect children, to protect itself from antisocial features or activities, and the rights of adults to be treated in a mature way. Just for the record, the clause reads:

The censorship law to conform with the principle that adults be entitled to read, hear and see what they wish in private and in public, subject to adequate provisions preventing persons being exposed to unsolicited material offensive to them and preventing conduct exploiting, or detrimental to, the interests of children.

This legislation does not achieve the objective of prohibiting material that is detrimental to children. If you read through the clauses of the bill, there are loopholes everywhere. It will not work. As the previous speaker Senator Stott Despoja said, we have to concentrate on empowering adults to understand what the Internet is about. We need to provide an education program so that adults know how to use the Internet in their homes and can prohibit their children from getting access to some of this awful stuff that may be available from time to time.

It is crazy to try to force every Internet service provider and every Internet content provider into some sort of censorship regulated regime. It will not stop the nasty stuff being on the Internet. If we are concerned about antisocial material, illegal material, we should be looking at the operation of the Crimes Act. It is mentioned in the legislation. The Crimes Act deals with such things as—unpleasant as it is to mention them—bestiality and paedophilia. People should be warned that, if they are found receiving and using such material, they are subject to the Crimes Act. But the idea that you put a prohibition or a restriction on everybody because some small minority may misuse the Internet is the wrong way to go. It will not work.

The joke about all of this is that, while we might try to ban, regulate and prohibit Australian Internet service providers and make it difficult for them to operate in Australia, the Internet will still allow people from overseas to send that awful material into this country and have it available. That is why we have to provide a program of education that will empower people and help them to understand what their obligations are. The idea that the state can do this in this particular case is fraught with danger. I think that, as a mature First World country which respects the right that all our adult citizens have responsibilities and accept them, that is the theme we should follow.

It is unfortunate that from time to time a small minority of senators and House of Representatives members get themselves unduly excited and go barking up the wrong tree, paddling up the wrong creek, trying to hunt down in an obsessive way every untoward suggestion that they do not like. That is an authoritarian state, a state where ideas are regulated, which is what the ultimate outcome will be if this bill is passed. The legislation will not stop paedophilia, bestiality or child pornography being promoted on the Internet because it cannot stop it coming in from overseas. What is this government doing to handle the fact that the Internet is a worldwide system? The government tries to ignore that because it has a different agenda, appealing to a very small minority.

We should be thankful that in this country we have access to the latest electronic developments in communications, which has meant that more people are being empowered. They can get access to information about the way their lives can be run and can run their own lives successfully; they can have access to information; they can tackle institutions that in the past may have ignored them—I think they are all to our advantage. As a First World country we should be accepting this as a major step forward and not seeing this as a threat.

Every time there has been a development in the last several thousand years going right back to the invention of writing someone has always said, `This new development is undermining the social values of the then existing society.' As I have said before, there are plenty of examples where the new technologies have made it difficult for the thugs of the world, the political dictators of the world, to continue on in their own way. I say to those who have had an interest in political human rights that that is a wonderful development. I have served on the human rights subcommittee for some six years and I have been to countries where access to new technology has meant that people are being empowered and now know what is going on.

I will conclude on one anecdote about this government's attitude to the dissemination of information. Two budgets ago this government cut the funding for Radio Australia. This was one of its most disgraceful decisions because it reduced a communications method for Australians to get information out to the world. I remember that as a member of the human rights delegation to Tibet in 1991 we discovered people in Tibet who were putting their lives at risk for human rights and the defence of Tibetan society. They knew we were there. Why? Because they listened to Radio Australia and to the BBC's overseas service. We were putting information into the local people in that society that would not get through the Chinese controlled media about what was happening in their own society and in their own country. One of the reasons why we should welcome new electronic developments is so that people who are under pressure in Tibet—or in a number of other countries where human rights are under threat—are given that opportunity for empowerment.

This bill is a disgrace to this Australian government. It is being put forward in a tawdry manner. It will not achieve its end, except make us look like a standing joke amongst sensible people in the world who welcome the new electronic developments that will make the world a better place.