Ms Triona Quill:

On defining the "lawful but awful" content, as the Senator put it, this is set out in the legislation. One of the categories is criminal content where something is criminal in nature, such as online harassment. There is also a category on cyberbullying that sets out parameters for material that would not reach the test of criminal content but nevertheless is cyberbullying in nature. That is set out in the legislation. It will not be for the media commission to set the parameters for that but obviously the codes it puts in place will draw on the definition in the legislation.

It is important to note that the German law deals only with criminal-type content. It does not deal with content such as cyberbullying or the other categories in this legislation. We would not see this as being parallel to that German legislation or that the measures in place in Germany are appropriate here.

Requiring individuals to identify themselves is a significant issue that goes beyond the parameters of this legislation and it could have significant data protection implications. It is a serious issue that would need to be examined in depth but it is not appropriate for this legislation, given the urgency with which we are required to put it in place. There will be a need for rolling legislation in the coming years to deal with the many issues arising in digital services.

The powers to block websites are provided for in the legislation as an ultimate sanction where needed. It would be done under court supervision to ensure appropriate checks and balances are addressed. Defamatory material is not included as one of the harmful categories in this legislation. That is being looked at separately by the Department of Justice. There is provision in the Bill to examine algorithmic or automated decision-making processes and to require, for example, impact assessments in that regard.