Dr. Karen McAuley:

I thank the Senator for his questions. He asked about ways in which the proposals fall short. We have already spoken briefly about the provisions made in respect of the availability for redress and how it is proposed that complaints may be dealt with by the commissioner, or not, as the case may be. That is one very important area that, from our perspective, needs further work in order to ensure that it safeguards children's right to an effective remedy in an appropriate and effective way.

As we indicated in our submission and I noted in my opening statement briefly, there are other areas about which we have residual concerns. In respect of the proposed approach to defining harmful content, it has less to do with the four categories that have been proposed so far than the use of categories as a mechanism. We understand the rationale for it, but we do have concerns about whether the use of categories is sufficiently specific to be rights-compliant. Clearly, it is absolutely essential that the provisions made in this regard and in other areas are rights-compliant so as to mitigate against any risk of future challenge. It is really about legal certainty around this.

We also have concerns in terms of specificity about whether the use of categories, as currently conceived, is sufficiently clear as to support a shared understanding about what falls within the scope of each category, and with that, that the categories will be workable for the commission. Again, it is about mitigating risk at this juncture of differences of understanding as to what does and does not fall within the scope and perspective disagreement between the commission and other stakeholders on this point. I will hand over to others to give them an opportunity to speak. We have similar concerns around proposals currently around age-inappropriate material. We need further clarification and information and the proposals need further refinement.