Have Your Say Before Parliament Decides

I am strongly supportive of practical measures that keep children safe online. Parents rightly expect online services to take responsibility for the risks their products create, particularly where children can be exposed to bullying, exploitation, harmful content or predatory behaviour.

However, I am also concerned that this draft gives a future Minister substantial power to expand the scope of regulated online harms, including to lawful material, through instruments that can take effect immediately.

When platforms face penalties as high as $21.84 million, there is a real risk they will remove lawful posts simply because they are uncertain or unwilling to take the chance. Protecting children must not become an excuse for undermining Australians’ freedom of speech or limiting legitimate public debate.

This is where you come in.

Before I settle my position, I want to hear directly from Fisher residents. Does the draft strike the right balance between keeping children safe and protecting freedom of expression? Are the proposed powers appropriately limited and accountable?

Please share your views so I can represent our community’s concerns in Canberra.

Question Title

1. Do you live in the Fisher electorate?

Question Title

2. Which of the following apply to you? Select all that apply.

Question Title

3. How concerned are you about children being exposed to harmful material online?

Question Title

4. How well do you think Australia's current online safety laws are working?

Question Title

5. Most people assume new online safety rules apply to social media. This draft is not limited to social media. On its face it may also apply to ordinary websites that allow people to post comments, such as regional news sites, community forums and small business pages. A website of that kind would carry the same obligations as a large international social media company. Do you think that is reasonable?

Question Title

6. The draft also changes who decides what counts as harmful content. It sets out a list of categories, and allows more to be added later by the responsible Minister signing a regulation, rather than by Parliament passing a law. Who do you think should make that decision?

Question Title

7. The new rules are backed by financial penalties, and that changes what a website has to weigh up. If it leaves up a post that is later found to breach the rules, it can be penalised. If it removes a post that did not breach the rules, there is no penalty for removing it. Given that, what do you think a website will do with a post it is unsure about?

Question Title

8. Not everything in the draft works the same way. It would stop five design features operating for users under 16 on social media: recommended content feeds, endless scrolling, likes and view counts, content that disappears after a set time, and features that only work when logged in. Do you support this measure?

Question Title

9. The draft would also require an online service to remove a non-consensual intimate image, including an AI-generated or altered one, within 24 hours of being directed to. Do you support this measure?

Question Title

10. Should online safety laws include specific protections for news reporting and political debate?

Question Title

11. Some businesses are found by new customers through recommended content rather than by being searched for directly. If you run a business, how much does it rely on social media or search recommendations to reach new customers?

Question Title

12. Is there anything else you would like raised in Parliament about this draft?

Question Title

13. Your name

Question Title

14. Your suburb or postcode

Question Title

16. Mobile Phone number

Question Title

17. Please tick if you would like to be kept updated on this issue.

T