June 30, 1999

Australia Passes Law on Limiting Internet

By JAMIE MURPHY

n a national effort to limit children's access to pornography on the Internet, the Australian government on Wednesday approved a law that would force Australian Internet service providers to remove objectionable material from Australian sites and to block access to similar sites overseas.

The law, which is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2000, has been widely criticized as unworkable. Opponents of the measure, in addition to criticizing its rapid passage, argue that it will have little impact in protecting children on the worldwide computer network and that it will undermine Australia's Internet economy as well as Australians' freedom of Internet access.

Related Articles Australia to Vote on Internet Curbs (May 25, 1999) Governments Expand Restrictions on Internet, Report Says (December 18, 1998)

Supporters of the legislation have said the law is needed to protect young Australians from indecent material.

The bill was proposed in April by Senator Richard Alston, who is also the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Last May, after the Australian Senate passed the bill, he said the measure "meets the Government's objective of helping protect Australian citizens, especially children, from illegal and highly offensive material, but it does so without placing an undue burden on the Internet industry."

The Australian House of Representatives passed the bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, on Wednesday. A formality, "royal assent" by Australia's Governor General, is the final step before the bill becomes law.

Senator Kate Lundy, a leading Australian Labor Party Senator, opposed the legislation, and the speed at which Alston's Liberal party passed it.

She said in an e-mail interview on Wednesday that a "ridiculously short timetable" stifled the public debate and rushed the legislation through both houses before newly elected lawmakers could take office. "The rush can be explained because, as of today, the balance of power in the Senate changes to a majority of Senators who opposed the bill (Labor, Green, Democrat)."

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), an electronic civil liberties organization, took a stronger stand against Alston on Wednesday, calling for his resignation. "This bill is no more than a cheap political stunt," said the group's executive director, Darce Cassidy.

Cassidy said Alston had ignored community concerns about free speech, dismissed his own department's advice and failed to comprehend the nature of the Internet, adding that he believed Alston was "ill-equipped to provide a leadership role in the era of the information economy since he has alienated himself from the very industry upon which that economy must be built."

He said that as it quickly becomes obvious that national governments are powerless to control a worldwide communication system, the bill would make the Australian government an "international laughing stock."

"Tragically, it will then be too late to reverse the damage that the legislation will have done to the Australian economy."

Lundy agreed with the possible impact on Australia's information economy.

"I suspect assumptions will be made that if the Australian Federal Government doesn't get 'IT', then there is less chance that any overall regulatory regime will provide an optimal environment for growth in the on-line economy in the future."

The bill does not mandate particular blocking technology for ISPs to control overseas Internet content.

A spokesman for the National Office for the Information Economy, which reports to Alston, defended the measure.

"The bill does not impose more onerous regulation that that applying to conventional media," the spokesman said, adding that it creates "regulatory certainty for ISPs and the industry in that the possibility of differing state and territory regulations and consequent regulatory fragmentation is avoided."

The new law would be enforced by the nation's broadcasting regulators, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, who would act only after receiving a complaint of objectionable material posted on the Internet. The officials would then contact the ISP where the material is posted, asking it to remove it or face a fine of up to $27,500 Australian dollars, about $18,000.

The bill does not mandate particular blocking technology for ISPs to control overseas Internet content and proposes that industry develop the necessary "codes of practice." These codes for filtering overseas material, the law states, should take into consideration technical and commercial feasibility in order to protect ISPs from unnecessary financial and administrative burdens.

Lundy argues that the bill will burden both ISPs and Australians.

"Users will be required to sift through a range of differentiated filter services that are anticipated to be offered by ISPs," she said. "The added costs associated with new filtering technologies for smaller ISPs (as a result of competitive pressure) may well send them under, limiting options for ISP service seekers."

Regardless of the type of filter, critics argue such software will not work. "The ordinary user will quickly learn ways of avoiding clumsy blacklist filters," said Kim Heitman, chairman of the EFA.

---

Related Sites
These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability.

• Senator RichardAlston

• Senator Kate Lundy

• Electronic Frontiers Australia

• Australia's National Office for the Information Economy

• Australian Broadcasting Authority