Australian Law

   the legal framework

   state/territory legislation

the New South Wales Classification (Publications, Films & Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (CEA)  

the Victorian Classification (Publications, Films & Computer Games) Enforcement Act (CEA) of the same year includes penalties for on-line "transmission" of material unsuitable for minors and has been criticised by some as unenforceable

the ACT Classification (Publications, Films & Computer Games) Act 1995 (CPFCG) reflects the NSW model

the 1995 Queensland Classification of Computer Games & Images Act (CCGI) uses a very broad definition of images (including text) within the meaning of 'computer game' and has been used in prosecutions over alleged online offences

the South Australian Classification (Publications, Films & Computer Games) Act 1995 (CPFCG) is similar to the Commonwealth classification legislation and does not appear to have a direct impact on Internet users

Western Australia has not followed the NSW model; its broad Censorship Act (CA) came into effect in November 1996. Critics have noted that under the WA legislation police do not require a warrant for searches of the premises of Internet Service Providers; some have argued this embraces inappropriate access to private email messages and other data contained on the ISP's system. 

the WA legislation strongly influenced the Northern Territory Classification of Publications, Films & Computer Games Act 1996 (CPFCG). 

Tasmania has the 1995 Classification (Publications, Films & Computer Games) Enforcement Act (CEA)

   industry 

From 1 January 2000 the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), under the BSA Act, has the power to regulate internet service providers and content hosts in censoring prohibited (and potentially prohibited) content. 

ISPs are required to take "all reasonable steps" in responding to ABA directions to prevent end-users accessing 'X' or 'Refused Classification' material. They are also required to provide customers with filters from a list of "approved" products. We examine some of those filters later in this guide.

The ABA site provides a short overview of online content regulation in Australia. That overview has links to ABA reports to the Government and the 1999 Senate Select Committee report on the BSA legislation.

Arguably the Act is a fine example of internet 'gesture politics', where the appearance of action is more important than substantive responses to policy challenges - real or imagined. The shrillness of praise for the Act and denunciations of the legislation and its authors has not contributed to community understanding of issues or assisted the growth of internet-based industries. 

The legislation for example enshrines a filtering regime (described later in this guide). However, the government agency responsible for that regime openly admits that whether the filters work or not is irrelevant. We have yet to see the Eros Foundation,  lobby group for Australia's adult entertainment industry, challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. Its members instead have moved offshore and in practice the content is still available. 

The online NIMBY approach is reminiscent of smut retailing in Canberra: it's readily available, as long as you're prepared to travel to the three industrial suburbs ... or point your browser to other than a .au domain.  

   local industry codes

The Internet Industry Association's Code of Practice is available on its site.  

The ABA's requirements for restricted access systems are available on its site.


  next page  (overseas law)