|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Australian Labor Party Minority Report
Procedural failings of the inquiry
Labor Senators note certain concerns regarding the conduct
of this inquiry.
The Bill was referred to the ECITA Committee for inquiry on 10 May 2007. On 16 May 2007, the Committee advertised for submissions to be received by 28 May 2007.
Labor Senators do not consider that the Committee had
sufficient time to adequately review each of the submissions.
Only 4 submissions had been received by 28 May 2007. These 4 submissions were from Festival of Light, NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Mr David
Bath and The Arts Law Centre of Australia.
On 29 May 2007, 2 submissions were received from Electronic
Frontiers Australia Inc and Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association.
It was then agreed by the Committee to hold an inquiry on 1 June 2007. Later that day, a further submission was received from Communications Alliance.
On 30 May 2007, 4 further submissions were received from
Internet Industry Association, Microsoft Corporation, DMG Radio and Australia
Subscription Television and Radio Association (the latter 2 submissions being
received after 6.00pm).
On 7 June 2007, 6 days after the Inquiry was held, a final
submission by Free TV Australia was received from the Committee. This submission
was dated 1 June 2007.
The method by which this inquiry process was handled would
appear to demonstrate the methods by which the Government will go to ensure
that their bills are passed through Parliament with only limited external
scrutiny of legislation.
Given the receipt of late submissions and no obvious time
imperative to pass the Bill through Parliament, Labor Senators query why the
inquiry process was so swift.
Legislative short-comings identified
The Submissions received raised a number of issues in
relation to the Bill. The key issues were identified as follows:
- The Bill does not prevent prohibited material being
accessed from overseas content providers.
- The use of restricted access systems for content that
is, or is likely to be classified R18+ and MA 15+.
- This ensures that content that is classified MA 15+ that is now
accessible to those aged 15 and over (such as movie previews/ trailers) cannot
be hosted on an Australian website with out an age verification system.
- This disadvantages the internet vis-à-vis television. Further,
Restricted access system is not defined in the Bill. As credit cards are not
available to those under the age of 18, what method of age verification system
can be used for those aged between 15- 17, who are entitled to view MA15+
content on television but who do not have a credit card to verify their age?
- The Bill prohibits content rated RC and X18+, the
effect of this is that films rated RC and X18+ cannot be watched on the
internet. Films that are rated X18+ are currently legally available in the ACT
and NT and can be purchased interstate via mail order.
- Consultation with makers of content appears to have been
deficient. The Bill discriminates against artists that use media technology for
the creation and dissemination of their work (ie: video artwork, web and sound
art and short film);
- ACMA may give a special take-down notice to a hosting service
provider that hosts or is proposing to host content that is the same or
substantially similar to content identified in the take-down notice. This
raises issues such as how will ACMA know a content host was proposing to host
certain content? How would ACMA or the content host know that content was
sufficiently similar to prohibited content, that it would be subject to the
interim or final take-down notice?
- The Bill provides for trained content assessors to be hired by
commercial content providers to assess live content. This provision raises
issues such as the cost of training such assessors and the level to which they
must be trained.
- Definition of service cessation notice in relation to live
content is unclear as to whether the notice be apply to an individual “stream”
of live content or must it be for the service as a whole.
- Definition of content service, with its 22
exemptions, is confusing and would appear to confuse the role of content
service provider and content carriage provider.
Labor Senators do not consider that the short time frame
between receipt of the submissions and the Inquiry, combined with the length of
the Inquiry permitted the Committee to consider these issues in detail.
Conclusion
Labor Senators do not consider that the inquiry process was
sufficient. Insufficient time was allowed to review the submissions and to
prepare for the inquiry.
Senator Kate Lundy
ALP, Australian Capital Territory
Senator Ruth Webber
ALP, Western Australia
Senator Dana Wortley
ALP, South Australia
Senator Stephen Conroy
ALP, Victoria
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 13 June 2007 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
