Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:55:18 to 2:05:00
The committee reviews the legislative process for the social media ban and concerns regarding targeted advertising to minors. Officials provide evidence on user migration patterns and the limitations of current content classification systems.
Topics: Online safety, Privacy
Speakers: Julie Inman Grant, Senator Sarah Henderson, Senator Malcolm Roberts, Senator Nita Green, Speaker 1, Interjection, Ms. Heidi Snell, Speaker 5
>> Uh thank you very much. Um, Commissioner, are you able to enlighten me? There's just been an amendment circulated in the House of Representatives on the digital duty of care bill. Uh, can you just enlighten me as to the background with these further amendments and what you know about why this has [snorts] been brought on very late in the piece?
>> I know nothing about the amendments. But
>> do you know anything, Minister? Just
in here with you since 9:00 a.m. So, and I'm not answering questions about the bill because obviously
>> I'm just asking about
>> asking about the bill.
>> I'm asking about
>> amendments to the bill.
>> I'm asking about matters concerning the amendment not going to the substance. I just want to understand how this has happened when it was circulated. Why why there is this lastm minute amendment to the bill? I've I've had no notice at all in relation to it. I
>> I understand it's being debated in the House. There is there will still be a debate in the Senate. Um and uh I'm sure that the Minister of Communications Office can brief you about any amendments that are being proposed today or or if there's further government amendments in the Senate. We will go through the normal parliamentary processes for this bill.
>> Now, this this is a this is an amendment that I understand will be voted on in the morning and we've just learned about it. So, I thought you might know something about I understand that you're you're the representing minister watching the minister's office, I could get a briefing.
>> They will reach out to you
>> in relation to this amendment. And I'd really love a markedup version of the online safety act uh including uh incorporating both the bill as well as this new amendment. Thank you Barnaby for that. Uh but it look in all seriousness it's very difficult for the parliament to be properly considering this bill under circumstances where this lastm minute amendment is circulated and we're just trying to make head or tail of what's
>> But I mean that's that's how we the parliament progresses legislation. Well,
I'm well, I'm I'm but I'm seeking information, Minister, and I'm entitled to do so. And that's why I
>> we will reach out to the commissioner
because I thought the commissioner might >> have made some recommendations in relation to the amendment. Uh there are
>> I don't I'm not aware of any feedback we provided or requests for an amendment.
Look, I I have um many many questions on the digital duty of care bill, but as I indicated earlier, I won't I won't get into the weeds in trying to ask questions. I think I will just draw a clear line in the sand and wait until the Senate inquiry. Uh but we I'm expect you will be called to the Senate inquiry commissioner. Sorry.
>> Uh we have not been called yet.
>> Oh well, I don't think that process is
on the way. But again um you know I I will not be the individual that is implementing the digital duty of care.
>> Of course
>> we will have great continuity with this team. Um Miss King, Miss Nell and Mr. Fleming have been very engaged in all the discussions uh with the minister's office and the department and uh you know I think uh we're already think they're already thinking about um you know when this passes regardless of what it looks like um how we'll progress the
>> Okay. Look, I think I'll leave my questions there. uh chair and just particularly because of time very conscious we've got to move. >> Thank you.
>> Senator Roberts, you have a brief few questions if if I can employ.
>> I've trimmed them down.
>> Thank you.
>> Um so I've just got four left. Why are you still not publishing every takedown notice for violent and increasingly politically political material to a register so we can all see what you're up to? For clarity, this could this would [clears throat] not include child sexual abuse material, revenge porn, deep fakes, and related material we discussed in the opening, which we can agree should not be public, but why
>> Are you indicating beyond the annual report the statistics that we include in that? Um, just to clarify,
>> well, you could do it either annually or quarterly or monthly. So the annual
report has reporting trends and and and
>> the overall numbers and proportions of success.
>> Correct. >> No. Publishing publishing your takedown notices.
>> The actual notice itself the document >> that wouldn't that sorry that wouldn't go in the annual report but um
>> we don't we don't currently do that. I think we can take it under consideration and advisement as to the appropriateness
to do that. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. The digital No, that that's touching on digital duty of care bill. It's basically about why can't we use u pin numbers for parents to give access or not give access to ch children various websites
>> give them access to pin numbers? Wouldn't that be up to the websites to set up those facilities?
Well, as I understand it, the digital duty care bill has child safety features, including a set of rules around what can be shown to a child, but this is not about the bill. The idea of a user panel giving users control on their feed could have a child lock, a parental pin, so parents can set the options for the child if they feel that is necessary. Would that be something you could also consider?
I >> I mean, that wouldn't be something that we would be facilitating. Um that would be something we would expect the the platforms one of the op options the platforms could could provide. And of course we would always um we would always advocate for the companies to provide as many um useful parental control features that are intuitive and effective as as possible.
>> So I think the responsibility needs to go back.
>> Well I think there has to be shared shared responsibility. We you don't you also don't want to put the entire burden on parents to be um you know the the sole people in intervening on their ch child's behalf. You want to make the platforms fundamentally safe. And so to give you an analogy, yes, we want to make uh seat belts easy for um or baby seats for for um parents to be able to plug in, but you need the fundamentals um in the car. you need to have the seat belts embedded in the airbags and the anti-lock brakes. So, >> [clears throat] >> um you know, it it should be fundamentally safer by design, but if there are further enhancements you can provide to parents to give them um choice and flexibility and empowerment, that's a good thing
>> and responsibility. With choice comes responsibility. Mhm. >> Um, taken together, you have most of an under 16 ban here, but turned around, the owners moved to what the digital platform shows children subject to parental supervision rather than the nuclear option of a blanket ban on children seeing anything at all, which has very had very limited success. Will you consider expanding the child protection clauses in the bill and repealing the under 16 ban entirely? to you.
>> Um well, a repeal would be an action taken by government, but um you know, we're talking about it's it's actually less um I think um >> extreme than I hear you describing it. It's about preventing under 16s from having and holding social media accounts, but it's not about totally cutting them off from the internet. And there are specific exemptions for messaging and gaming platforms as well.
We we've um ventilated this issue before so I won't go through it again.
>> Okay.
>> Uh we have last question. We have a classification system now for TV, movies, games, publications, etc. And it's being harmonized with the social media ban right now. Isn't it easier to make web companies follow the existing classification system instead of just banning children from the internet entirely with an with an added user panel and parental lock? Of course >> uh >> classification plus parental law.
>> Yeah. I mean we have to um abide by the classification rules and through a range of functions that we have but mostly for um determining class one class 1 B class 1 C to material. Uh I I'm not sure. I mean, I think a lot of work needs to be done to the classification board. And then a live question is whether or not >> the classification board because it was developed for all those purposes that you um articulated is fit for purpose for being able to evaluate userenerated content that goes viral in a in a matter of moments. Um that was an open question in the context of the um online safety act review.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you uh chair.
Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. Uh, with enough further questions, thank you very much uh to the e safety commissioner and your officials. I appreciate all the work that goes into preparing for Senate estimates.
>> I'm cool if I go woohoo.
>> Not not not at all. This is a very cool place. Uh, but thank you again for all your work in this space.