Twitter has been ordered to detail efforts to prevent online hate on its social media platform in Australia or face fines after a surge in cyber abuse complaints to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The social media giant was issued with a legal notice on Wednesday, with civil penalties of nearly $700,000-a-day available to…
A roadmap charting a way forward on Australia’s proposed mandatory age verification regime for online pornography has been delivered to the federal government after almost two years of development by the eSafety Commissioner. The age verification roadmap was handed to the Albanese government on Friday, coinciding with the deadline on the final draft of the…
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner will likely receive additional funding in the Albanese government’s May Budget, with Labor ministers continuing to criticise the former Coalition government for not providing ongoing funding. Total administered expenses for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is budgeted to fall from $51.1 million in financial year 2022-23 to just…
Online safety codes developed by the industry but rejected by the regulator have been redrafted and released for public consultation. It is the final chance for the industry to write its own rules for the Australian-first codes, with the regulator threatening to develop its own if significant changes aren’t made. Clearer definitions of key terms…
Draft online safety codes rejected by the eSafety Commissioner earlier this month have been publicly released by Australia’s tech sector after concerns over the lack of transparency in the industry-led process. The draft codes were published by the industry associations representing companies that provide platform services, including global giants like Google and Meta, on Thursday….
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has rejected proposed industry codes put forward by associations representing the online industry, sending the draft codes back to industry demanding that they address areas of residual concern. The industry associations, which represent companies that provide platform services from the global giants like Google and Meta to small online game providers, to…
Australia’s online safety codes should be abandoned at the eleventh hour in favour of stronger regulator led rules, digital rights advocates say, warning the self-regulation model will put young Australians at risk compared to tougher approaches overseas. Australia’s online regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, is finalising her approvals of the safety codes developed by industry over…
The federal government has engaged social media companies and placed protections on government data as part of initial measures designed to respond to the release of stolen Medibank customer data. Cybersecurity minister Clare O’Neil detailed several measures being taken in response to the release of information on the dark web by a ransomware group on…
Australia’s online safety regulator has joined the mounting criticism of Elon Musk and revealed she has written to the Twitter chief to express her concern about the platform’s new direction and future compliance with Australian laws. Mr Musk dubbed himself “chief twit” during the acquisition process he led, but his Twitter bio now reads “Twitter…
Following the recent spate of data breaches, much of the public conversation has focused on the need for regulatory reform to protect Australians’ privacy and “incentivise better behaviour” from companies that collect and store personal data. The Albanese government has proposed legislation to increase penalties for companies subject to repeated or serious privacy breaches. Both…
Large digital service providers will face a raft of new obligations after the European Parliament adopted two bills that seek to enhance online safety and combat unfair business practices. On Tuesday, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of adopting the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). Both had been provisionally…
Digital transparency, the examination of algorithms and their impact, and increased collaboration between agencies have been identified as 2022-23 priorities for the Digital Platform Regulators Forum, a collective of Australia’s online, privacy, media, and competition and consumer regulators . The Forum members, which are the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Australian Media and Communications…
Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has called on global regulators to end the “era of technological exceptionalism” and to recalibrate the “range of human rights” that play out online. Ms Inman Grant spoke on a panel at the World Economic Forum on Monday, alongside Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium Petra De Sutter, Finland’s Minister…
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has recommitted the Coalition to its controversial anti-trolling bill and unveiled further funding for the eSafety Commissioner as part of an online safety election pitch. Mr Morrison unveiled his “plan to keep Australian families safe online”, including some new funding for online safety initiatives and other policies the Coalition has previously…
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner will be “closely watching” Twitter to ensure it follows local privacy laws and regulations following news that tech billionaire Elon Musk will be buying the social media platform for $61.4 billion. It was announced on Monday that Mr Musk, the chief executive of boith Tesla and SpaceX, will be buying Twitter for…
A government-led Parliamentary committee has called for statutory requirements around social media algorithmic transparency, potential regulation of end-to-end encryption and continued scrutiny of Big Tech companies. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety, chaired by Liberal MP Lucy Wicks, tabled its 250-page report on Tuesday evening. The report includes 26…
The eSafety Commissioner has slammed the federal government’s so-called “anti-trolling” bill, saying it conflates several issues, has stirred confusion and oversimplifies important issues. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant appeared before a Senate inquiry into the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill on Thursday morning, raising a series of concerns around the legislation, including that it “creates public…
Two inquiries into the controversial ‘anti-trolling’ bill will not report back until mid-March, with it becoming increasingly unlikely the legislation will be passed before the upcoming election, despite Prime Minister Scott Morrison promising it would be “dealt” with in February. On Tuesday morning the federal government moved to extend the Select Committee on Social Media…
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is “worried” about the government’s so-called anti-trolling reforms, saying they could lead to vigilante justice and may confuse the public. Appearing before the Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety on Thursday afternoon, Ms Inman Grant agreed with other witnesses that the government’s anti-trolling bill is not about…
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has been reappointed for a further five years as new laws granting her new internet takedown powers come into effect. Ms Inman Grant, a former Microsoft, Twitter and Adobe executive, has been eSaftey Commissioner since 2017. On Sunday, communications minister Paul Fletcher announced she will remain in the job…
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant hopes to take the public along with her as her office explores how to implement a scheme that would prevent anyone aged under 18 from accessing online pornography. It comes as Ms Inman Grant acknowledged that using the federal government’s own digital identity system for verifying people’s ages, as…
The eSafety Commissioner has opened consultations on a range of new measures to crackdown on social media firms and other platforms to block underage individuals from accessing online pornography and material classified to be R18+ or higher.
The eSafety Commissioner is ramping up its powers following the passage through Parliament of the Online Safety Act earlier this year, with the new scheme to come into effect from 2022.
The Act requires an update to the restricted access system declaration, which requires content deemed to be R18+ or higher to be behind a restricted access system so it cannot be accessed by children.
This update will broaden its scope to cover a wide range of online platforms, email and messaging services and Australian hosting service providers.
Julie Inman Grant: Australian eSafety Commissioner
The Commissioner is also looking at a potential age verification system targeted specifically at preventing anyone aged under 18 from accessing pornography, with a new roadmap to be handed to the government next year.
The roadmap will look at technological approaches for online age verification, and comes just months after the federal government agreed in principle to use its digital identity scheme to verify the ages of individuals before they access online pornographic or gambling sites, but there will be no action on this until 2023.
Under the now-passed Online Safety Act, the Commissioner will have the power to issue take-down notices to a range of services in relation to harmful online content. For other content, the Commissioner will be able to issue a remedial notice, and the tech firm will have to either remove it or ensure it is subject to a restricted access system.
If this meets the minimum standards set out in the Restricted Access System (RAS) declaration, then the material does not have to be removed.
Digital Rights Watch program lead Samantha Floreani said careful and measured consideration of these complex issues is required.
“We want to see an evidence-based and harm reduction approach to these issues, not heavy-handed restrictions and removal of content based on a moral standing. The Online Safety Act is a clear example of what happens when regulation focuses too much on content over context,” Ms Floreani told InnovationAus.
“We hope that through these consultations, albeit rushed, the eSafety Commissioner will meaningfully engage with the community in order to develop policies which protect people, rather than morals.”
The discussion paper outlines how the RAS will be updated to expand the scope of services it applies to, including social media firms, email companies, instant messaging services and online games.
It will also apply to Australian hosting service providers. Submissions on the new RAS will close on 12 September.
The new age verification requirements will not be limited to material hosted or provided in Australia, but will cover “commercially produced and user-generated sexually explicit material” being accessed by Australians. It is also not limited to material that falls under the remit of the RAS.
The Commissioner will present an online age verification roadmap to the government next year.
“Inappropriate content like violent or extreme pornography that young children may encounter by accident can be distressing and even harmful, while for older children who may seek out this material, the risk is that it will give them unrealistic and potentially damaging ideas about what intimate relationships should look like,” eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said.
“Age verification, as overseas experience has shown, is a complex issue, so it is important that all sections of the community are able to be heard. We will take a considered, evidence-based approach that takes into account feedback from industry, stakeholders, experts and the public, to find workable solutions.”
Ms Floreani said the proposal to use digital identification and facial recognition for age verification is particularly troubling.
“We are concerned that the technological approaches to age verification will present an unreasonable invasion into people’s privacy, as well as possibly creating significant security risks,” she said.
“It was only a few years ago that the Department of Home Affairs suggested the use of facial recognition technology for age verification to access online pornography. The proposal to use such an invasive and error-riddled technology to regulate access to such sensitive content is alarming.”
Last week the eSafety Commissioner also opened consultations on the Basic Online Safety Expectations (BOSE) for large social media firms like Facebook, outlining core and additional expectations around the cyberbullying of children and cyber-abuse of adults.
Following concerns that the introduction and passage of the Online Safety Act was rushed, running several important consultations at the same time and for only a month is troubling, Ms Floreani said.
“We need well thought out, considered regulation and policy to deal with the rise in hate speech, online abuse and bullying. But without meaningful public consultation, the balance won’t be right,” she said.
“The result of the rushed consultation process is legislation that contains broad, ill-defined powers for the Commissioner, and lacks the kind of nuance we need to ensure we don’t end up creating harm while trying to prevent it.
“Running simultaneous public consultations on both the BOSE as well as the Restricted Access System, both due within two months, continues the trend of unreasonably fast turnaround times which makes it exceptionally challenging for concerned individuals and organisations to meaningfully participate.
“There is also no space given to engagement beyond written submissions, no roundtables or workshops with the community.”
The controversial Online Safety Bill has passed the Senate and will become law after a late-night session which saw the major parties unite to wave through a number of amendments.
Late on Tuesday night the Online Safety Bill, which hands significant new powers to the eSafety Commissioner to order the removal of content and blocking of sites that don’t comply, was approved by the Senate with bipartisan support.
Labor and the Coalition teamed up to pass a number of amendments, including to require an annual report on the Commissioner’s use of the new powers and a new internal review scheme, and to reject others.
The bill now needs to be returned to the lower house, likely this week, as a formality, before it comes into effect in six months.
Communications Minister Paul Fletcher with eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant
The bill was rejected by the Greens, which labelled it “utterly undercooked”, and a number of Labor Senators rose to express concerns around the major powers being handed to a single individual, the impact on encryption and on groups such as sex workers, despite ultimately supporting it.
A number of amendments were successfully moved, including that “serious harm to a person’s mental health” does not include “mere ordinary emotional reactions”, to require the Commissioner to report annually on the use of the new powers, the establishment of an advisory committee and the development of an internal review scheme.
Some of the amendments that were voted down by the Senate included one that carved out sex education and harm reduction content from the scheme, another that required digital platforms to not unnecessarily remove content and for a compulsory independent review of the act.
The Online Safety Bill extends the online takedown scheme to Australian adults, allowing the eSafety Commissioner to issue removal notices for content they deem to constitute online abuse, image-based abuse and harmful online content, with a 24 hour time limit.
It also requires the quick blocking of websites hosting “abhorrent violent and terrorist content”, increases the maximum jail sentence for using a digital platform to menace and harass to five years, and allows the Commissioner to demand that content deemed to be rated R18+ and higher be removed from digital platforms.
Communications minister Paul Fletcher said the scheme “gives new protections for Australian adults subjected to seriously harmful cyber abuse”.
In an opinion piece for InnovationAus, Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg said it is about protecting people from abuse online.
“What I want to see is a scheme that is ultimately going to protect people from cyberbullying and image abuse in a way which balances out the privacy concerns which are understandable and legitimately,” Senator Bragg said.
But there are numerous critiques of the new scheme, particularly around its impact on the adult industry, on freedom of speech, and that it may lead to the censorship of online content.
There are also concerns around the “rushed” nature of the bill’s passage through Parliament.
After unveiling draft legislation in December, the government opened submissions on it during the Summer break, and received over 400. But just 10 days later it was introduced to Parliament, and quickly referred to a Senate committee for inquiry.
Stakeholders were then given only three working days to make a submission to the committee, which quickly gave the legislation the green light.
Labor said that it would ultimately be supporting the bill but that it is “not happy about the way it has been delivered”, echoing many concerns of the wider community.
The Online Safety Bill will pass Parliament after Labor offered its support for the controversial legislation despite being “not happy” about the way it has been delivered, and the Greens labelling it “utterly undercooked”.
The legislation was briefly debated in the Senate this week and will likely pass the upper house next week, with the support of Labor after the Opposition negotiated a numer of amendments with the government.
The Online Safety Bill extends the online content takedown scheme to Australian adults, allowing for the issuing of removal notices for content deemed to be rated as R18+ and higher, and to order the sites and apps to be blocked if they don’t comply.
Communications minister Paul Fletcher has said the bill “gives new protections for Australian adults subjected to seriously harmful cyber abuse” and “widens” the powers of the eSafety Commissioner.
The draft legislation was unveiled in December last year, with a consultation process following which many dubbed “rushed”. Submissions on the draft legislation were open during the Summer break, with more than 400 received.
Despite this, the legislation was introduced to the power house just 10 days later, where it was quickly referred to a senate committee for inquiry. Stakeholders were only given three working days to make a submission to this inquiry, with the legislation eventually given the green light.
Communications Minister Paul Fletcher with eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant
There are significant concerns around the impact of the new powers on the adult industry, the investment of huge powers in a single individual in the eSafety Commissioner and the potential for it to further undermine encryption.
Despite these concerns, the Online Safety Bill was broadly supported in the Senate by Coalition and Labor Senators on Wednesday afternoon.
The Greens moved an amendment to have the bill withdrawn, and said they would eventually vote against the legislation.
The government will move an amendment to its own legislation with the support of Labor, introducing increased reporting requirements for the eSafety Commissioner on how the new powers are utilised, and a new internal review mechanism for these decisions.
Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg spoke in support of the Online Safety Bill, linking it to the news media bargaining code passed by Parliament earlier this year.
“What it really does is bring to bear a simple, single framework for online safety. I think setting out the basic online safety expectations and arming the eSafety Commissioner with the power to effectively ensure that people are protected will be broadly welcomed,” Senator Bragg said.
“What we don’t want to see is people being bullied and harassed online. We’re balancing civil liberties against the desire to protect people, and these are judgements that should be exercised by a minister and they should be disallowable, and that is the intention.”
A number of Labor Senators raised concerns about the legislation and the process behind its legislation, but the Opposition will eventually vote in support of it.
Labor Senator Louise Pratt said that the rushed process behind the legislation had “significantly undermined confidence” in it, and that the Opposition shared many of the concerns about its substance too.
“There’s an important balance to be found here around free speech and protections against certain types of speech. We’re concerned this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner’s discretion to remove material without commensurate checks and balances,” Senator Pratt said.
The Senator also said that the new powers could be used to “stifle” debate and free speech if placed in the wrong hands, and that the government’s amendments did not go far enough.
Labor Senator Nita Green summed up the party’s position on the bill, saying they would be supporting it but weren’t happy about that.
“While Labor will be supporting this bill we’re certainly not happy with how it is being delivered,” Senator Green said. “There’s a lot we don’t know about how this bill will be implemented.”
Greens Senators called on the government to completely redraft the bill in order to take into account concerns around the use of the National Classification Code, the potential for the powers to be used against lawful online content creators, the inadequate rights for review and inadequate transparency.
The Greens will also move amendments requiring an independent review of the Act in two years time, and that reasonable steps are taken to ensure the material being taken down is not removed unnecessarily, and for the impact on freedom of expression to be minimised.
Greens Senator Nick McKim raised concerns that the legislation will lead to an increase in the use of automation and AI by big tech companies to remove potentially offending content.
“The use of AI and algorithms in similar circumstances in places like the US has been extremely controversial to say the least, and we are concerned that the use of those technologies could lead to disproportionate outcomes like blanket bans, even if that is not the intent of the Commissioner,” Senator McKim said.
“This chamber should have taken the time to make sure we get it right and we avoid to the greatest extent possible any unintended consequences flowing from this legislation. The Australian Greens are disappointed that this chamber has not been given that opportunity.”
Fellow Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John also slammed the handling of the bill, saying it is “totally and utterly undercooked” and that it had been “rammed through in the shortest possible time”.
The Online Safety Bill will not be passed by Parliament until May at the earliest, despite the rushed process behind the federal government’s controversial legislation.
The Online Safety Bill, which extends the eSafety Commissioner’s takedown scheme to Australian adults and allows for the issuing or removal notices for content deemed to be R18+ or higher and the ordering for sites or apps to be blocked if they fail to comply, was introduced to the Senate last week.
There are significant concerns around the legislation, including the discretion it hands the eSafety Commissioner, its potential impact on sex workers and activists and the potential to further undermine encryption.
The eyes have it? The Online Safety Bill is still before parliament
The government revealed a number of amendments to the legislation following negotiations with the Opposition, centred around improved transparency and reviews of the sweeping new powers.
But the bill wasn’t brought on for debate and was not passed before Parliament rose for the sitting week. With Senate Estimates this week and the Easter break, Parliament does not return for a full sitting week until the end of May, presenting the next opportunity for the Online Safety Bill to be passed into law.
Shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity Tim Watts said the Opposition would continue to work with the government on the proposed amendments during this delay.
“Despite significant delays and much media spruiking the government still hasn’t been able to deliver legislation that adequately addresses serious stakeholder concerns,” Mr Watts told InnovationAus.
“It’s been two and a half years since the Briggs Review recommended a new Online Safety Act. Instead of getting on and delivering it, the government has been spruiking the Bill in the media as if it were already law for two years.”
The government could have used this extra time to consult on the legislation and address the issues around it, Electronic Frontiers Australia board member Justin Warren said.
“It is disturbing that the government plans to hand a large amount of largely unchecked power to a single person when it hasn’t even figured out how to safely use that power,” Mr Warren told InnovationAus.
“The current Commissioner told the Senate that ‘this is the sausage being made right now’. ‘Move fast and break things’ is what got us in this mess in the first place,” Mr Warren said.
“These are not new issues, so it is entirely reasonable for us to expect the government to have figured out these details before asking for more power. It’s just another example of the government not doing its homework and then rushing to turn in something, anything, at the last moment. Australians deserve better.”
The short process from revealing draft legislation to introducing it into Parliament has led to a number of issues, Mr Warren said.
“EFA is very disappointed that the government has ignored the detailed and constructive feedback on the bill from a broad and diverse cross-section of Australian society. When this many people, who frequently disagree with each other, are all telling you you’ve got it wrong, you should pay attention,” he said.
“The hasty drafting of the legislation has removed a variety of oversight mechanisms and safeguards that already exist, while extending Australia’s outdated censorship regime to cover private, person-to-person messages.”
The two-month delay comes after a rushed process where the government only provided three working days for stakeholders to make submissions to a senate committee inquiry into the bill.
A draft version of the Online Safety Bill was unveiled in December last year, with a consultation process running over the Summer break to 14 February.
Despite receiving nearly 400 submissions, the government introduced the bill to the lower house just 10 days later.
The submissions also weren’t made public until after the legislation was introduced to Parliament.
The bill was quickly referred to a Senate committee, with further submissions due just three working days later.
The committee soon gave the legislation the green light, and it was passed by the House of Representatives last week with bipartisan support.
Labor voted in favour of the bill but raised a number of concerns and flagged further amendments in the upper house.
The government announced it would be amending its own legislation in the Senate, requiring the reporting on the use of the powers by the eSafety Commissioner, and for the formulation of a reviews scheme within the office.
Tim Watts said the timeframe around the legislation “undermined confidence” in it.
“It is disappointing that the government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders in terms of process and substance,” Mr Watts said in Parliament.
The Greens will be voting against the legislation because it is “poorly drafted and could lead to widespread, unintended consequences”.
The government will move to amend the Online Safety Bill to provide more transparency and reviews after the controversial legislation was passed by the lower house with support from the Opposition.
The Online Safety Bill hands new powers to the eSafety Commissioner, extending the online content takedown scheme to Australian adults, and allows for the issuing of removal notices for content deemed to be rated R18+ or higher, and to order the site or app to be blocked if it refuses.
A set of basic safety expectations will also be outlined for Big Tech as part of the legislation.
The legislation was given the green light by a Senate committee on Friday, and was passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon.
Online safety: Labor will support governments controversial bill, albeit with amendments
Labor supported the legislation in the lower house but is expecting a number of government amendments in the Senate to address the myriad concerns around the bill.
Shadow cybersecurity spokesman Tim Watts acknowledged concerns about the bill, including that it vests significant power and discretion with the eSafety Commissioner, its lack of transparency about how this power would be used, its potential impact on the sex industry and for it to be used to remove content that is in the public interest.
The government has been unable to address these stakeholder concerns, Mr Watts said
“The safety of Australians online is of paramount importance and Labor will work with the government to iron out concerns with these bills in time for debate in the senate,” Mr Watts said in Parliament.
“But in the meantime, Labor will not oppose these bills and we support passage through this place on the understanding that government amendments are forthcoming,” he said.
“Labor considers that the government must consider further amendments to clarify the bill in terms of its scope and to strengthen due process, appeals, oversight and transparency requirements given the important free speech and digital rights considerations it engages.”
The government amendments are expected to include increased reporting from the eSafety Commissioner on how the new powers are utilised, and a new internal review mechanism regarding these decisions.
On Tuesday morning the Greens announced that they would be voting against the legislation, calling for it to be withdrawn and redrafted as it is “poorly drafted and could lead to widespread, unintended consequences”.
“This bill would make the eSafety Commissioner the sole arbiter of internet content in Australia. It creates extraordinary powers for any one person to hold, let alone an unelected bureaucrat,” Greens senator and digital rights spokesperson Nick McKim said.
“It also fails to provide for timely reviews or appeals of decisions made by the eSafety Commissioner. We are concerned that people opposed to sex work, pornography and sexual health for LGBTIQ+ people could abuse the complaints process to seek to have lawful online content removed. Public interest news that involves violent imagery, such as footage of police violence, could also be taken down.”
While the Online Safety Bill has been discussed by the government for several years, it recently only gave stakeholders four working days to make submissions to the senate inquiry into the final piece of legislation, which was introduced to Parliament just a week after nearly 400 submissions were received on it.
This short timeframe has “undermined confidence” in the process, Mr Watts said.
“It is disappointing that the government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders in terms of process and substance,” he said.
There is also a “worrying lack of conceptual and operational clarity” around how the new powers will work, with Mr Watts pointing to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant recently saying that the “sausage” is still being made.
“Finding the balance between free speech and protections against certain kinds of speech is a complex endeavour and we are concerned that this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner’s discretion to remove material without commensurate checks and balances,” Mr Watts said.
“It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee a situation where, in the hands of an overzealous eSafety Commissioner, legitimate speech could be silenced – whether of racial or religious minorities expressing outrage at racist speech, or of women expressing outrage at sexual violence in the workplace.”
The government’s Online Safety Bill has been given the green light by a Senate committee, paving the way for its debate in Parliament this week.
In the final report, the Opposition did however signal that it would move to amend the legislation in Parliament this week, while the Greens called for it to be redrafted entirely.
The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee tabled its report into the Online Safety Bill late on Friday afternoon.
Online Safety Bill: Senate report tabled in Parliament
The legislation hands new powers to the eSafety Commissioner, extending the takedown scheme to Australian adults, allowing for the issuing of removal notices for content deemed to be rated as R18+ and higher, and order the sites and apps to be blocked if they don’t comply.
While the committee received a number of submissions raising significant concerns with the impact of the new powers on the adult industry, the investment of huge powers with a single individual in the eSafety Commissioner, and the potential for the law to further undermine encryption, it recommended the bill be passed as is.
The committee’s only other recommendation was for the bill’s explanatory memorandum to be amended to clarify that the requirement for the basic online safety expectations code for tech companies to be in place within six months is “for best endeavours” with the eSafety Commissioner to have further discretion to work with industry to determine a timeframe.
In the report, the committee rejected the transparency and accountability concerns, and those worried about unintended consequences.
“The committee notes that there are extensive existing mechanisms for public and parliamentary scrutiny, as well as provision for statutory independent review of the options of the Online Safety Act, and administrative and judicial review of individual decisions made by the Commissioner,” the report said.
“Despite this, some committee members continue to share the particular concerns expressly identified by some submitters and witnesses regarding transparency and reporting in the exercise of the Commissioner’s powers.
“The committee notes that the Commissioner’s view that the new scheme is intended to focus on online harm, which the committee considers is an appropriate approach and which would not capture the significant majority of adult content online.”
In additional comments to the report, participating Labor Senators Nita Green and Catryna Bilyk criticised the rushed process behind the government’s consultation around the legislation.
“The short timeframe at the end of this drawn-out process has undermined confidence in the government’s exposure draft consultation process, with a number of stakeholders concerned that submissions have not been considered properly,” the Labor senators said.
The Opposition called on the government to make further amendments to the legislation to clarify its scope and “strengthen due process, appeals, oversight and transparency requirements, given the important free speech and digital rights considerations it engages”.
“We are concerned that this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner’s discretion to remove material without commensurate requirements for due process, appeals or transparency over and above Senate estimates, annual reporting and AAT appeals,” the Labor senators said.
In additional comments, participating Greens senators slammed the bill, saying it creates “extraordinary power for a single unelected bureaucracy – with little to no oversight – to wield”, and that the rushed process has meant it hasn’t been considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The new powers could also be “weaponised by people with moral or political agendas”, the Greens said.
The Greens called for the legislation to be withdrawn and redrafted to address these concerns, including the potential for the powers to be used against lawful online content, an inadequate right of appeal, inadequate transparency and accountability, the potential for the powers to be used to undermine encryption, and their detrimental impact on sex workers.
The Greens also called for a constitutionally or legislatively enshrined Charter of Rights, including privacy and digital rights matching the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.
The Online Safety Bill is now expected to be debated in Parliament this week.
Civil and digital rights groups say the sweeping new Online Safety Bill is a “rush job”, having been introduced to federal parliament just 10 days after government received nearly 400 submissions on the proposed laws.
The government unveiled the draft Online Safety Bill in December last year, with consultation running across the summer break up until 14 February.
The bill extends the eSafety Commissioner’s takedown scheme for Australian adults, allowing them to issue removal notices for content deemed to be rated as R18+ or higher, and to order the sites or apps be blocked if they do not comply.
Dark tunnel: The Online Safety Bill has been smashed through parliament
There are significant concerns about the new powers, particularly their impact on sex workers and activists, the significant power and discretion handed to the commissioner, and on their potential to further undermine encryption.
Despite the scale and scope of the legislation, the process behind its introduction to parliament and consultations has been a “rush job”, Digital Rights Watch program director Lucie Krahulcova said.
Submissions on the draft legislation closed on 14 February, with 370 submissions made to government on the bill.
Despite the volume of submissions, the government introduced the legislation to Parliament just 10 days later on 24 February. It is still yet to release any of the submissions it received as part of that round of consultation.
It was subsequently referred to a Senate committee for inquiry, with submissions opening on 25 February and closing on 2 March. This left just three working days for stakeholders to make a further submission on the final legislation.
“The fact that the government is willing to plough on with the bill a mere 10 days after 370 submissions were filed should raise alarm bells. That is not what a democratic consultation process looks like,” Ms Krahulcova told InnovationAus.
“This does not indicate a meaningful consultation process, nor that community concerns are being taken seriously. It means we need to speak up even more,” Digital Rights Watch tweeted.
Former federal Greens Senator Scott Ludlam also raised concerns with the timeframe around the bill in a submission to the senate inquiry, saying it appears the government has already made up its mind.
“As expected, the draft bill provoked hundreds of submissions flagging grave concerns. For some reason the government has ignored this feedback and instead proposes to proceed with an unacceptably compressed timetable, with a largely unamended bill, in the absence of any formal response to red flags many civil society organisations have made,” Mr Ludlam said in the submission.
“This response indicates that the government had already made up its mind, calling into question the purpose of the exposure draft. It therefore falls to the senate, through this committee, to prevent the foreseeable risks posed by this bill as drafted.”
In its submission, tech giant Google also pointed out the speedy process of introducing the bill to Parliament.
“This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives a mere 10 days after the public consultation period on the Exposure Draft of the bill closed,” Google’s Samantha Yorke said in the submission.
The Online Safety Bill will introduce a “world-first cyber abuse take-down scheme” for Australians, Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said in Parliament last month.
“This new scheme provides a pathway for those experiencing the most seriously harmful online abuse to have this material removed from the internet,” Mr Fletcher said.
“The Australian government believes the digital industry must step up and do more to keep their users safe. That belief underpins the provisions of the bill.
“We all enjoy standards of behaviour and civility in the town square that keeps us safe, and there are appropriate mechanisms and sanctions for those who break these rules,” he said.
“The Australian government believes that the digital town squares should also be a safe place, and that there should be consequences for those who use the internet to cause others harm. This bill contains a comprehensive set of measures designed in accordance with this belief.”
