Conclusion
Australian laws and policies toward the Internet are aligned with those of many
Western countries, while New Zealand’s are less stringent. The Australian government
has instituted a strict takedown regime for offensive content, and various states and
territories have made distribution of such content a criminal offense. The government
is pursuing voluntary programs to increase home filtration of the Internet, and Australia’s evolving hate speech, copyright, defamation, and security policies offer further
justification for restricting Internet content. A countrywide ISP-level filtering scheme is
currently being tested.
New Zealand, in contrast, has instituted a more limited classification system—
though it does include hate speech—with no takedown notices and has not yet formally adopted copyright legislation that applies to the Internet. Its broad defamation
and security policies, however, are more reminiscent of Australia.
Overall, however, Australia’s Internet censorship regime is strikingly severe relative
to both its neighbor and similar Western states, and it is helping to push the normative
boundaries of filtering for an industrialized democratic state. It is not, however, at the
level of the most repressive regimes that the OpenNet Initiative has studied.
Notes
1. Roy Jordan, ‘‘Free Speech and the Constitution,’’ Parliamentary Library, June 4, 2002, http://
www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm.
2. Geraldine Chin, ‘‘Technological Change and the Australian Constitution,’’ Melbourne University
Law Review, 25 (2000), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2000/25.html.
3. Electronic Frontiers Australia, ‘‘Internet Censorship Laws in Australia,’’ March 31, 2006, http://
www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html.
4. Fran Foo, ‘‘Green Light for ISP Filtering Trials,’’ Australian IT, February 11, 2009, http://www
.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25040645-15306,00.html.
5. Chris Keall, ‘‘Section 92A to Be Scrapped,’’ National Business Review, March 23, 2009, http://
www.nbr.co.nz/article/section-92a-be-scrapped-89121.
6. Geraldine Chin, ‘‘Technological Change and the Australian Constitution,’’ Melbourne University
Law Review, 25 (2000), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2000/25.html.
7. The Australian Communications and Media Authority was formed in July 2005, merging the
Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. See Australian
Communications and Media Authority, ‘‘The ACMA Overview,’’ http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/
STANDARD//pc=ACMA_ORG_OVIEW.
8. Electronic Frontiers Australia, ‘‘Internet Censorship Laws in Australia,’’ March 31, 2006, http://
www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html.
Australia and New Zealand Overview
401
Australian laws and policies toward the Internet are aligned with those of many
Western countries, while New Zealand’s are less stringent. The Australian government
has instituted a strict takedown regime for offensive content, and various states and
territories have made distribution of such content a criminal offense. The government
is pursuing voluntary programs to increase home filtration of the Internet, and Australia’s evolving hate speech, copyright, defamation, and security policies offer further
justification for restricting Internet content. A countrywide ISP-level filtering scheme is
currently being tested.
New Zealand, in contrast, has instituted a more limited classification system—
though it does include hate speech—with no takedown notices and has not yet formally adopted copyright legislation that applies to the Internet. Its broad defamation
and security policies, however, are more reminiscent of Australia.
Overall, however, Australia’s Internet censorship regime is strikingly severe relative
to both its neighbor and similar Western states, and it is helping to push the normative
boundaries of filtering for an industrialized democratic state. It is not, however, at the
level of the most repressive regimes that the OpenNet Initiative has studied.
Notes
1. Roy Jordan, ‘‘Free Speech and the Constitution,’’ Parliamentary Library, June 4, 2002, http://
www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm.
2. Geraldine Chin, ‘‘Technological Change and the Australian Constitution,’’ Melbourne University
Law Review, 25 (2000), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2000/25.html.
3. Electronic Frontiers Australia, ‘‘Internet Censorship Laws in Australia,’’ March 31, 2006, http://
www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html.
4. Fran Foo, ‘‘Green Light for ISP Filtering Trials,’’ Australian IT, February 11, 2009, http://www
.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25040645-15306,00.html.
5. Chris Keall, ‘‘Section 92A to Be Scrapped,’’ National Business Review, March 23, 2009, http://
www.nbr.co.nz/article/section-92a-be-scrapped-89121.
6. Geraldine Chin, ‘‘Technological Change and the Australian Constitution,’’ Melbourne University
Law Review, 25 (2000), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2000/25.html.
7. The Australian Communications and Media Authority was formed in July 2005, merging the
Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. See Australian
Communications and Media Authority, ‘‘The ACMA Overview,’’ http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/
STANDARD//pc=ACMA_ORG_OVIEW.
8. Electronic Frontiers Australia, ‘‘Internet Censorship Laws in Australia,’’ March 31, 2006, http://
www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html.
Australia and New Zealand Overview
401