Minority Report by Senators Reynolds and Denman

1.1 The Australian Labor Party (ALP) Senators are pleased at the Government's keen interest in the development of on-line services. However, Labor Senators are concerned that so much attention has been given to the content of on-line services yet the Government has enthusiastically outsourced all of the Government information technology departments. In addition the Government has ignored the European Union's call for privacy legislation for the private sector to be enacted.

1.2 We support recommendations 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 14 and 15 put forward by the Government Senators for the Select Committee on Community Standards relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies.

1.3 We reject Recommendation 1 because we recognise that, while computer on-line services can be used for broadcasting, it is not only a broadcasting medium. It is also a medium for publishing and it is a means of private communication between individuals and groups. On-line services therefore require a new approach to regulation and we do not wish to support a recommendation which would make material that is legal in other media (for example print), illegal if it is made available through an on-line service.

1.4 We support Recommendation 2 and endorse most of the findings of the recent ABA report entitled Investigation into the content of on-line services and are keen to see the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) system of labelling (as opposed to a rating system) investigated further.

1.5 We support Recommendation 3 and endorse the development of a code of practice for participants in the on-line industry and firmly believe that the main responsibility for material published on the Internet and other on-line services rests with the originator of the material, the content provider. We also acknowledge that the 'industry' includes content providers, Web Page designers, vendors and ISPs, and defining who exactly should be responsible for material is indeed problematic.

1.6 We reject Recommendation 4 as there are large discrepancies in the size, resources and market power of the various Internet Services Providers (ISPs). The Telstra service such as Big Pond and other large groups such as OzEmail possess far greater resources than many others ISPs which are in many cases a couple of people with a few modems operating from home.

1.7 We support Recommendation 5 and as mentioned above believe that the main responsibility for material published on the Internet rests with the originator of the material, the content provider - not the Internet Service Provider.

1.8 We support Recommendation 6 and believe many community concerns can be addressed through the investigation of reliable age verification procedures.

1.9 We reject Recombinations 8 and 9 because the responsibility for the transmission of on-line material should be vested with the Federal Parliament. We believe if it is found that regulation is appropriate then a national approach should prevail as agreed by the Online Government Council. We also acknowledge that persons transmitting material which is currently illegal are liable for prosecution under Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 which states that:

A person shall not knowingly or recklessly:

(a) use a telecommunications service supplied by a carrier to menace or harass another person or:

(b) use a telecommunications service supplied by a carrier in such a way that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstance, offensive.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

Therefore the Australian Federal Police should be responsible for any action enforcing legislation as opposed to the state and territory based police forces.

1.10 We accept Recommendation 10 because it is essential to conduct a wide ranging education campaign to de-mystify on-line services and to encourage a sensible level headed community debate.

1.11 We support Recommendation 11 provided the limitations of blocking and filtering software are made clear to parents. The majority of such is crude and can in some cases be counter productive by denying access to areas which do not contain any objectionable material. Furthermore it must be remembered that the technological literacy of the children often surpasses that of the adult population. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many children are very capable of circumventing blocking and filtering software.

1.12 As with Recommendation 10, we support Recommendation 12 because of the importance of educating the community and encouraging a sensible level headed community debate about developments in on-line technology.

1.13 We support Recommendation 13 but we do acknowledge the great difficulty in implementing any sort of regulation which will eliminate all "objectionable" material due to the global nature of on-line services.

1.14 We support Recommendation 14 to allay community concerns and to give people a point of contact to express their views about material they may find offensive.

1.15 We support Recommendation 15 acknowledging the global nature of on-line services and the great importance in international cooperation in the development of the on-line industry.

[signed] Senator Margaret Reynolds and Senator Kay Denman