June 17, 1996


Shaw Replies to Net Legislation Critics

Contrary to what Narelle Clark says, I will only be reading your mail
if you send it to me.  And if you have concerns about Australia's draft
proposals to protect children from objectionable material on the Internet,
I'd like to know.

I regret that the fact that I have told people about the proposal every
government in Australia is considering has not resulted in discussion
or debate based on fact, but rather, dare I say, the odd piece of
propaganda.

Allow me to correct some of the misapprehensions surrounding the
proposals, a number of which appeared in the last but one issue of Sydney
City Hub.

Firstly, and most basically, the NSW Attorney-General's Department does
have a connection to the internet.  As does my office.

And it is not my law.  At the moment, it is not anyone's law.  The
draft proposals are currently before the Standing Committee of
Attorneys General (SCAG) - a committee of every Attorney in
the country

The Attorneys General are not talking about absolute regulation, or
absolute safety, for one obvious reason - this would be impossible.

But the inability to regulate absolutely does not justifiy failing to
take steps to protect children from objectionable material, like
paedophilia, and extreme sexual violence.  The impossibility of
absolute regulation does not justify failing to do what we can
to meet reasonable concerns.  I believe that parents would not like
their children to be able to access child pornography on the Internet.
And if this did occur, I believe they would like to be able to make
a complaint, and see the appropriate action taken in response.  That is
what the proposals are all about.

Unfortunately the assertion that X-rated pornography is already illegal
and doesn't require a separate law to ban it on-line is not true.  The
law is by its nature, a specific instrument.  Existing laws do not
apply to on-line services.

The proposals are about extending existing law to apply to on-line
services.  Only there will be an important difference.  The proposed
legislation will contain broad defences.  A defence to any offence under
the legislation would be complying with the code of practice.  The code of
practice will be worked out with the industry, so that it is reasonable,
workable and fair.

Much of the criticism of the proposal ignores this fact, which means that
it is ignoring half the story - the crucial half.

A simple example would be the requirement that service providers supplying
the Internet service to schools would be required to ensure the appropriate
firewalls are included to screen out objectionable material, like explicitly
sexually violent material and paedophilia.

Certainly, some young people may be able to arrange to buy this sort of
material.  However, I am certain teachers would appreciate their lessons
remaining interrupted [sic! - danny] by children seeking and finding such 
material.  Certainly, parents have the primary responsibility of supervising
their children.  But no one expects they can do this 24 hours a day.

The legislation will not censor adults [sic] communication with
adults.  No one will know if you have sent a love letter to your love unless
your lover complains.  While this may lead to a rethink of the relationship,
it is highly unlikely to have any other consequences.

The proposed regulative strategy will be complaints-based.  While it
will encourage service providers to maintain maximum awareness of
the material they are disseminating, it will not require them to read
every single word they transmit.  It is highly unlikely that the proposal
scheme will infringe the civil liberties of customers - unless they
are paedophiles or advocating or promoting violent rape.  And
privacy concerns will be addressed with the aid of the Privacy 
Commissioner.  The NSW Government has a strong commitment to privacy.
We are currently drafting the first comprehensive privacy and data
protection legislation in the country.  Once the legislation is
passed through the parliament, the Privacy Commissioner will have new
powers of enforcement, and that office will be merged with the
Anti-discrimination Board to create a new NSW human rights and justice
commission.

The on-line service regulation proposals have been under discussion for
more than two yeras, as some people interested in the area will know.
The draft proposals are bsaed on a discussion paper released in July 1995 
by the Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Commonwealth
Attorney-General's Department.

The consultation paper was released in both paper form and on the
World Wide Web on 7 July 1995.  Submissions were welcomed, and one hundred
and twenty one were receieved.

Last July, the relevant ministers from each State endorsed a regulation
strategy and approved the drafting of proposed legislation.

I cannot be sure that the "leaked" copy of the legislation actually
reflects the current proposals, as I have not seen it.  The draft
legislation is confidential, because it is still before SCAG.

I regret that much of the discussion of these proposals has not been
based on fact, as my intention was to glean constructive ideas, criticisms
and assistance from the community.

The legislation has not been finalised, and changes may be made.  All
concerns that are based on fact will be carefully considered.

I agree with recent reported comments of Bill Gates, that technology
can provide a much more effective safeguard without restricting the
free flow of ideas.  The idea behind the legislation is to ensure this
occurs.  

If you do want me to read your mail, please mark it Internet Proposal
and send it to the NSW Attorney-General's Department, PO Box 6, Sydney,
2001.