From the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill:
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 (the Bill) amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) to provide for the regulation of online services. Schedule 2 to the Bill makes a consequential amendment to the Crimes Act 1914.

The Government takes seriously its responsibility to provide an effective regime to address the publication of illegal and offensive material online, while ensuring that regulation does not place onerous or unjustifiable burdens on industry and inhibit the development of the online economy.

The proposed regulatory framework contained in the Bill strikes a balance between the needs and interests of the industry and wider community concerns in relation to material that is illegal or highly offensive, or may be harmful to children. The Government acknowledges that there are technical difficulties with blocking all illegal and offensive material that is hosted overseas but considers that where it is technically feasible to block material this should be done. It is not acceptable to make no attempt at all on the basis that it may be difficult.

Will the legislation achieve these objectives?

No. The legislation fails on several grounds. Firstly, it will not affect the publication of illegal or offensive material online. Australian law has no jurisdiction over sites physically hosted outside this country, and there is very little if any "illegal and offensive" material hosted in Australia.

Secondly, the legislation places onerous and unjustifiable burdens on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to censor material, in response to directives to be issued by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). Although the legislation requires that regard must be had to the "technical and commercial feasibility" of blocking overseas content, these terms are so vague as be inappropriate for inclusion in law.

Because of the sheer size of the Internet, and the rapid growth rate, it will be impossible for the ABA to perform its allotted responsibility of classifying sites. The legislation is considered by the industry to be incapable of protecting children from exposure to illegal or offensive material.

The legislation purports to be about protecting children, and "measures to stop paedophiles, drug pushers, bomb makers and racists from using the Internet to spread their poison", according to a recent press release from the Minister. But child pornography, drug trafficking and terrorism are already illegal, on the Internet or off. This legislation will make those crimes no more illegal than they already are. However, on the pretext of protecting children, it will block access for adults to other material that is legal in film, video and magazine format.

What are the economic effects of the legislation?

The legislation is considered by some as violating the Australia-United States Joint Statement on Economic Commerce.

US Senator Ron Wyden wrote to the Australian Ambassador in Washington on May 13, saying "Such an approach would clearly violate the spirit and the letter of the policy statements contained in the Australia-United States Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce. Only two nations have attempted wholesale centralised regulation of the content of the Internet - China and Singapore - and both have found their efforts ineffective." The text of the Agreement is at:
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/pressrel/1998/cooponecommerce.htm

The legislation will impose considerable additional compliance costs on ISPs, by way of equipment and staffing. It will also result in the movement of many content developers and websites to offshore locations, in order to avoid the onerous regulatory environment here. Many companies and individuals have already announced such intentions.

It must be understood that the information economy is global in nature, and in many ways unrestricted by national boundaries. Careful consideration must be given to this issue, since regulation by one nation that is out of step with international practice can have a dramatic and immediate effect. The government has made no assessment of the economic impact of this legislation.

The Managing Director of IBM in Australia, Mr Bob Savage has said that the Bill "could put restraints around Australian business that other countries don't have to worry about and that makes us less attractive" (The Australian, May 6). The local Managing Director of Cisco Systems, quoted in the same article, has said that the Bill will not be effective.

Similar comments have been made by the CSIRO, the Internet Society of Australia, the Australian Computer Society and the Australian Library and Information Association.

Isn't there great community concern about pornography on the Internet?

The government claims there is widespread demand for legislation to block inappropriate material on the Internet. Yet one of its own agencies has refuted this. The National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), informed the Minister in their Telecommunications Performance Report 1997-8l, at page 116 that "Inappropriate content was the smallest concern of Internet users surveyed."

Every recent Australian survey confirms this. Another survey, undertaken early this year by the widely recognised www.consult, the same company that had previously been commissioned by NOIE, found that only 9.9% of respondents thought that the government should censor the Internet. Nearly two thirds of those surveyed (62.5%) said that parents should be responsible for their kids, and 22.2% said that no one should censor the Internet.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey commissioned by the OFLC explored community perceptions of film, video and computer games. In relation to adult material, i.e. X-rated videotapes, two out of three respondents who held a firm opinion believed this material should be available to adults. A follow-up survey conducted by the Bureau in August 1994 indicated that 78 per cent of respondents supported the availability of R classified films and videos.
Source: ABA On-line Services Investigation Final Report, 1996.
http://www.aba.gov.au/what/online/olsfin4.htm

An AGB McNair poll showed 83 per cent of Australians thought non-violent sexually explicit X-rated videos should be legally available.
Source: The Age, 25 Apr 97 http://www.theage.com.au:80/news/970425/nsp3.txt.htm

What are other countries doing about Internet content regulation

The government is at odds with the view of most Western governments on this issue. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which has announced, after an inquiry lasting almost a year, that it will not regulate Internet content. The CRTC said that it was concerned 'that any attempt to regulate Canadian new media might put the industry at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace'. The CRTC is the equivalent of the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Source:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/NEWS/RELEASES/1999/R990517e.htm

The Canadian concern has been echoed by the Malaysian Government. Not noted for liberal attitudes, the Malaysian government abandoned attempts to regulate Internet content on economic grounds. Source:
http://hongkong1.cnet.com/briefs/news/asia/19990322bl.html

In the USA, two attempts were made by Congress to enact legislation to control Internet content but these have been ruled unconstitutional. The Administration has now adopted a "hands-off" approach that focuses instead on parental empowerment. A similar approach has been adopted by the European Union. In general it might be observed that other countries have come to the conclusion that the Internet renders the concept of centralised government censorship obsolete.

Australia is out-of-step with world opinion on this issue, and the government's moves have been greeted with scepticism and disbelief by other countries.

What is the solution then?

There is material on the Internet that parents may not wish their children to see. There are sensible and practical ways for supervising children's use. Parents should supervise young children when they use the Internet. For older children, they may decide that the Internet should only be available in a public room, like the family room. Parents can purchase filtering software of their own choice, to be installed on the family computer, rather than at the ISP level. While these products are not perfect, this option is far more viable than the legislation currently before the House.