HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (PRIVACY ISSUES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Children's Protection Act 1993. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Last week, I raised in this place the concerns of a constituent who found that one of her children had posted inappropriate content on the child's own Facebook page. When the parent contacted Facebook in an attempt to have the photographs removed, the organisation replied that it would not discuss the issue with her. The organisation indicated that it would speak only to the holder of the account, even if the holder of that account was 13 years of age.

The organisation did not have a policy of discussing or disclosing information on children's pages with their parents at all, despite the age of the child being as young as 13 in this case. Indeed, Facebook indicated that both federal and state privacy laws were primarily to blame for this policy. Indeed, the email the mother received from Facebook read:

For security and private reasons, we will not be able to correspond with you about the account. Facebook is forbidden by federal and many state laws to take any action on or release any information regarding a user's account to anyone who is not the account holder. All users aged 13 and older are considered authorised account holders and are included in the scope of this policy.

The truth is that South Australia does not have a privacy act per se. We are, nevertheless, bound by several pieces of legislation that do deal with privacy, among them the Freedom of Information Act 1991, the State Records Act 1997, the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1988. Other states, such as New South Wales and Victoria, do have further protections that South Australia may at some stage emulate.

I indicated my concern at the time that the policy and privacy laws are interfering with parents' ability to properly protect their children from inappropriate online exposure. In simple terms, why should a parent not be able to have control over what their 13-year-old child is putting on a particular website? This mother and I have spoken together on the media about this issue, and I have also arranged an interview with her on the Sunrise program on Channel 7, which ran a segment with her last week. Indeed, the issue with this mother was even taken up by a CNN website in the US, which demonstrates the breadth of concern about parental rights in the new digital age.

I have raised my concerns directly with the state and federal attorneys-general, and obviously with Facebook directly. It is one thing for SAPOL, for example, to distribute advice telling parents to keep close tabs on what their children are doing online—which it does properly and appropriately—but if parents are disempowered from taking action because of privacy policies, I believe that we need to take action to keep parents in the loop. I strongly believe that we need to give parents all the necessary tools to protect their kids online.

The basic situation in this case is that we have a 13-year-old child taking what I suggest are mildly inappropriate photos—nothing of a high level, anyway, if I can put it that way, but certainly things that most parents would not want of their own daughters, or sons for that matter, on the internet. Children of that age do not have the best judgement, obviously, when it comes to these matters. They may not fully appreciate the fact that these things are on there forever and can be on there forever. In fact, Facebook says quite clearly in its policies and procedures that it then has the right to manipulate those photos and to pass them on if they deem it appropriate. I cannot imagine the circumstances under which they would, but they do have that authority. People, by the very nature of having a Facebook page, actually agree to those conditions or they cannot have one.

The situation is that we have children putting inappropriate images on Facebook and other sites—it is not just Facebook, of course—and their parents cannot do anything about it. When you go to the organisation (in this case Facebook) and say, 'You need to change your policies so that parents can have a say in this matter,' they simply stonewall you and say, 'No, there are privacy laws forbidding us from doing that.' I hope that this parliament has the courage to do something about that and send a strong message to Facebook and other similar organisations that that is not appropriate and that parents should be able to have a strong say about what goes on their own children's websites.

In fact, I am heartened by some legislation recently introduced in California which does exactly that. I suspect that, should that legislation become law (if it has not already—to be honest, I am not sure what the latest developments are), we will see some very significant worldwide changes in this regard. This bill in particular requires the minister to undertake public consultation in such manner as the minister thinks fit in relation to the rights of parents to access information created by or relating to children under care. There is a further requirement that the minister must, within six months after the commencement of this section, prepare a report detailing the results of the consultation undertaken in accordance with this section and cause the report to be laid before both houses of parliament.

I believe the minister should be looking at this issue. I have tremendous concerns when parents are disempowered from taking an active role in protecting their children from inappropriate online exposure. I would say that one criticism of the measure I am introducing today may well be that it is, in fact, not a substantive enough measure, and I agree with that. I do not believe it is a substantive enough measure to really rid ourselves of the problem. Really, all this bill requires is that the minister look into the problem and publicly consult on it. That is because we are absolutely constrained and there is no direct way of our doing this in this state simply because we do not have a privacy act. As such, Facebook is not breaking any South Australian law by doing what it is doing.

I am advised by parliamentary counsel that there is almost no way of fixing that under our law. This is largely a commonwealth matter and, hence, I have written to the commonwealth Attorney-General seeking his intervention in this matter. Our state Attorney-General would have significant authority on this matter if he was prepared to raise it at the meeting of attorneys-general, and I believe that, if he did, this would be something we could get multipartisan agreement on and really do something about it. This bill really sends a signal to the minister that this is a really important matter.

I must say, when I raised this matter in the media, the response was probably the single biggest response I have personally had to an issue I have raised in the media in my five and a bit years in this place. So, I think it heightens a degree of concern out there by parents. In fact, I am not aware of one person disagreeing with my position on this matter. So, I urge the members to have a close look at this and I earnestly ask for their support.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT