U16 Online Safety Bill
Lodged today to the online safety bill
Submissions close: 22 September 2025
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
ec.sen@aph.gov.au
The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting
children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet
Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban,
including:
Other related matters:-
1.
There are no constitutional powers given to Australian
Parliament House (APH) for any actions related to the internet for or against
citizens. The timings are too coincidental that the online actions were put in
place to cover the fact that Australian Public Servants (APS) were acting unlawfully
against citizens with an intent to harm with Robodebts.
2. I am a submitter to various internet safety &
misinformation inquiries. My submissions show that ACMA, E-Safety, Home
Affairs etc have no constitutional powers to enact online legislation for the
following reasons:-
2.1a s51vi in 1901 we were in a
war namely the Boer War & there was no censorship of free speech or private
mail or contacts between citizens voiding validity to use censorships in the
name of defence;
2.1b s51v the internet was not
like other technology validated by a 1960's patent that would not have issued
had it been like other technology. The Computer History Museum recognises Kenbak-1, released1971, as the world's first personal computer. Things
within the section were envisioned to be govt owned. Internet Service Providers,
websites & even Social Media companies are not government entities. Computers are the personal property of their owners. Who buy
the use of programs when they purchase their programs.
2.1c s116 laws made to interfere
with free speech are invalid, because in the beginning was the word ...the word
was God Christian Bible John 1:1. The Bible is not subject to age verification;
2.1d When our Constitution Act
came into being 1901 the age of consent in NSW the most populous state was 14.
This means 14-year-olds were likely an eligible party to vote for it. It was
agreed to by votes of only non-aboriginal males in tents across the country.
There was no age verification process for voters. Young convicts rarely
knew their correct age. First Fleeter John Hudson is reported to have been 9yo.
This was the historical environment under which our constitution was agreed to.
It was good enough for males with unverified ages & poor education to be
deemed fit to communicate their acceptance of our primary complex legal
document.
It is ludicrous to imagine that
people able to vote for our constitution without age verification, have to have
their ages verified for social media access. Most of the social media sites
have themselves implemented a minimum age of 13 without government intervention;
2.1e s51 only gives power to legislate
Acts for the interest of good government Order. There is no logic or security in
Acts that will empower the enforcement of foreign social media companies accessing
citizens official identity documents. The companies & their shares can be
bought & sold at the drop of a hat.
2.1f Our major defence partner
USA has made it very clear that they are standing by their constitution &
bill of rights on free speech.
2.1g Even as a lay legal observer
one legal case has jumped out at me as having immediate ramifications Trump vs
Casa Inc. While not directly related to this topic one of the Supreme Court
judges referred to precedence in a matter that should have a bearing on all
constitutional matters. This is because no-one can question that a USA Supreme
Court judges are common law reasonable fair thinking persons. At reference 8
the reuse of precedence set in stone that constitutions need to be considered
with the timings in which they were agreed to. When you consider our
constitution, it was a contract of agreement between the people & APH. In
order to change the powers of that agreement it could only be with referendums
to change that agreement or add things to it. Neither privately owned computers
or the foreign entity rich internet are the subject thereof. There are a few
references in the decision that refer to Constitutional power applications that
are relevant for any citizen with a constitution:-
2.1g(i) “As
a general rule, an injunction” could not bind one who was not a “party to the
cause.” F. Calvert, Suits in Equity 120 (2d ed. 1847); see also Iveson v.
Harris, 7 Ves. 251, 257, 32 Eng. Rep. 102, 104 (1802). Ergo no power of control
under communication or defence was ever given over children as they were not
signed parties to the Constitution. This is the same for women, aborigines
& voting was not compulsory so many men also;
2.1g(ii) "While “equity is flexible,” Grupo
Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 322, the Court’s precedent emphasizes that its
“flexibility is confined within the broad boundaries of traditional equitable
relief.” Ibid. Because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it
falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority under the
Judiciary Act. Pp. 5–11.". There was no social media in 1901;
2.1g(iii) Ref 8 bottom of page 16 Cf. "Grupo
Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 332 (“[Equitable powers conferred by the Judiciary Act
of 1789 did not include the power to create remedies previously unknown to
equity jurisprudence”)."
3.
I have been:- 1. defamed by the PM & Cabinet
Covid inquiry as a 1984 conspiracy theorist for correctly modelling Covid19; 2.
Defamed as a “dangerous person” by ACMA's Digi voluntary trial partner Meta
Facebook for again warning people that the Covid19 inoculation was never needed
for circulation harmful things wait for it like a St John's Ambulance
resuscitation chart. I consider myself
as a reasonable thinking person. I ergo would like to know why my submission
warning that all the censorships we experienced in Covid19 were
unconstitutional & had a purpose of interfering in elections has still not
been published public (https://democracydemon1.blogspot.com/2023/08/inquiry-into-misinformation-or.html).
Or
how about my public submission to the Combatting Misinformation Bill (https://democracydemon1.blogspot.com/2024/09/combatting-misinformation-and.html).
4.
All my submissions were submitted public &
warned of the unconstitutional nature of the acts proposed by the then Minister
for Communications & now Attorney General (AG) Ms Rowlands. You would be
well aware that s51 good government "Order" must meet two basic
Natural Justice principles & both of those are being ignored when online
censorships arise. We have been silenced within the inquiries & by the very
people pushing the censorships.
5. I am not convinced there was ever a real threat to
children & I was a submitter to the 2022 inquiry into online safety
exposing Twitter Files 10mths before it happened. The E-Safety Office & its
commissioner, have not just overstepped their Constitutional powers, from what
I can see they had no power to start with. Case after case is being lost
in Courts by a foreign E-Safety Commissioner with questionable prior funding
links to USAID. USAID has been shut down because on top of other things they
were giving funding to the Taliban, while we were fighting them. (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8eb3abfb-057a-4bb4-85c7-dedc9d111ca1&subId=720658).
6. I'm advised that the govt plans to have adults
identify our ages to get access to social media. I am advised that age facial
recognition has been considered. On who’s dime & time? If online actions
are not constitutionally empowered & all indications are that they are not,
then the money for these pursuits has been misappropriation. When I get a
licence or any other govt id document it takes half an hour for the
photographer to get a picture they are happy with. When I get the photo id back,
we all sit round laughing because they don’t look like me. What photo does govt
propose we match too? How much time are businesses going to lose every time the
facial age technology stuffs up.
7. The legal costs are not a problem to our 20% legal
practitioner MP’s. The public purse that the public cannot use is picking up
the Bill. We have at least 2 offices SG & AG tasked to look at the lawfulness
of legislation & 1 in 5 MP’s in APH reported to be from the legal
profession. Yet still II cannot get a
straight answer on the lawfulness of online censorships. That is assuming of
course that the SG’s Office has actually been enabled to get any of their online
mail. Any Act created must come from the Constitution, but I cannot see any
path to E-Safety at all that supports a case of its legitimacy.
8.1 I have now racked up well over 2 years of FOI requests
(first request 24 May 2023 to Home Affairs) to find out who at APH, has been
censoring me on Covid19, Robodebt & Online Free Speech matters. Without
fail, the Australian govt depts, have sent me on a cross govt hunt, because in
my opinion the action of APH censoring any citizen on the internet is unconstitutional
& lawful.
8.2a My latest dead end, was an attempt to lodge an email
request to the Solicitor General’s office 7 July 2025. Because of the number of
Acts that have been passed & been attempted, in order to censor even adults
online & breach their privacy, the information should certainly have been at
the hand at both the Solicitor General’s
(SG) & Attorney General’s(AG) Offices by 7 July 2025.
8.2b My latest request started at the Solicitor General's
office included information on rulings as above on international law that have
direct common law relevance to the Australian Constitution. Further they have
relevance to laws in place now & proposed censorship laws in the future. I
am a non-Commonwealth officer & the information I was censored &
suspended on had an intent to do harm to all Australians. Legislative sections have
been removed to protect citizens which is an act of harm also. Considering the
disappearance of sections on the misuse of information in prior versions of the
Crimes Act 1995 I raise that there appears to have been various changes that do
not satisfy s51 on good govt order. I am though going to direct everyone’s
attention to the current Crimes Act 1995 Part 5.6—Secrecy of
information Communicating and dealing with information by non‑Commonwealth
officers etc. Division 122—Secrecy of information s122.
Communication and other dealings with inherently harmful information by current
and former Commonwealth officers etc. & s122.2 Conduct by current and
former Commonwealth officers etc. causing harm to Australia’s interests. If I
can prove things like Robodebt & Covid19 were bipartisan fraud (& I
can) then the online censorships & suspensions I received had an intent to
do harm.
8.2b In an attempt to fob me off from getting an answer from
the SG, Labor’s AG office “Steph” has been giving me & others a side trip
to a Disneyland version QoN, where in only 150 words to an unknown entity you
may or not get an answer from anyone’s guess. I have looked at the governance
structure of the AG’s office & “Steph” (no surname given) appears to have
created her own FOI sub-department to “help” me, to help them, avoid answering
questions. My email was directed to the
SG office so why am I getting responses from it is anyone’s guess. The SG is a senior office & the AG has a
conflict of interest on my matter. I
have rarely ever approached the SG Office direct so I am by no means a serial nuisance
emailer. My track record on getting things right, on things that APH has been
doing illegally & likely to harm Australians, is pretty good. It is a
pretty fair bet that if I have questions on legality serious enough, I have
gone straight to the Solicitor General’s office, I should be able to get an
answer instead of a runaround by employees likely acting unlawfully. I don’t need to be schooled in how to ask a
question or an FOI from an office that was not where I directed my questions. I need a Cert III level customer service
officer to walk to a filing cabinet & get me what I asked for. The secretaries that are paid by the public
purse to answer my questions. I should
be able to get a receipt for my contact to every office. My email to the SG’s
Office has not received either a receipt or an email delegating response to
another dept, the legality of online actions in my opinion are being interceded
by the AG’s office. Neither did the SG’s office seek my permission to refer my
email that could have contained private sensitive information to another dept. Despite
requesting Steph’s surname so I can consider whether my private communication has
been the subject of a privacy breach my response from “Jess Hockings Director
| FOI & Privacy | Office of Corporate Counsel Attorney-General’s Department”
failed to supply same & gave me a lesson on FOI’s which is just rubbish. This was initially an unanswered email on a legal
question of existing legislation that both the AG & SG office should have
had the answer to already. Even a grade II consumer service person knows how to
deal with members of the public. Ms Hockings though appears to have no identity.
Perhaps before we have any more attacks on our identity privacy a few people in
govt should be considering the secrecy they give their own.
8.3 There has been:- an entire agency set up E-Safety in
2015; proposals for ACMA to get more online powers; & numerous online inquiries
resulting from Acts floated to online privacy weaken (Metadata 2015 & AABill
2018) & online censor citizens (Mis/Disinformation bill). The question of
from where APH is constitutionally empowered to act, for or against the
interest of citizens, should be a simple one. It is the most relevant question,
because unless it can be answered now Acts already in place should be repealed
immediately.
8.4a I decided I would look at the history in the 10 years
since 2015. It isn’t pretty. 10 years ago Metadata 2015 was being promoted by AG
Brandis. Quote:- Attorney-General George Brandis said he was "allowing for
the possibility" that "smart criminals" may be able to get
around the Government's new data retention laws.” (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/metadata-laws-criminals-may-evade-them-george-brandis-says/6351962).
The “smart criminals” were the Robodebt welfare victims of the Data Match Act 1990.
In fact, in the case of the data retention on me, as I was successfully fighting
an unlawful data match, a Centrelink senior officer first tried to blackmail me
into giving permission to breach my privacy & then when I refused APH
breached my privacy against my will with a private company & no warrant to show
suspicion of a crime. These are the real “smart criminals” because instead of
sitting in a jail cell as Robodebt accomplices many were relocated to NDIS
where they are still up to their old tricks.
8.4b 2015 is E-Safety’s first year. In 2015 Australian Labor’s
Data Match Act 1990 was getting a dust off with a 16.2M feasibility study that
took me all of 10 minutes with a 50 cent pen & paper to work out it was
unlawful. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965907/We-running-turbocharged-Commodore-64-age-iPhone-Minister-warns-Centrelink-s-computer-handles-payments-worth-100-billion-year-disaster-waiting-happen.html).
8.4c Quoting again the 27 March 2015 article "Metadata
is the basic building block in nearly every counter-terrorism,
counter-espionage and organised crime investigation," Senator Brandis said
after the bill had passed.” Robodebt was illegal. The basic building blocks
were all sat on a foundation of quicksand. Despite lodging numerous requests for reviews,
I still cannot get an answer on what data was retained about me & how deep
my privacy was breached against my will & without my permission. I challenged & won my data match case at
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). I was not the “smart criminal” Australian
Public Servants (APS) were because they are not sat in jail cells. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandissays-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482).
8.4d To quote Labor’s former AG Dreyfus in The Conversation 5
October 2016, “He said Brandis had “attempted this power grab and then covered
it up by claiming that he had consulted the solicitor-general. Today it was
revealed that senator Brandis did not consult the solicitor-general.” (https://theconversation.com/bitter-row-between-george-brandis-and-solicitor-general-flares-66600)
8.4e If correct “this power grab” started in 2015. 2015
was when the E-Safety Commission was first formed. Yet no-one wants to call out the office as
being another “basic building block”. As quick as Robodebt Data Match was under
scrutiny, we had censorships in the name of Covid19 health. Many Australian adults had their social media
accounts permanently censored for putting out the correct information. Worldwide now the Covid19 shots are being proven
to have been based on absolute fraud. The “basic building block” was for the
interest of building crypts.
8.4f The animosity between Brandis & Gleeson led to
Gleeson resigning. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I reckon that when Data
Match 1990 was running illegal from 1993 both Brandis & Gleeson would have
to have been punch drunk from their verbal fisty-cuffs not to have missed that
there would’ve been a lot of people alleging rotten Centrelink debts inside
tribunals across 22 years. (https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2016/10/stand-off-between-brandis-and-solicitor-general-threatens-the-ru).
8.4g There was also a push by Brandis & the Liberal
National Party to deport dual citizens charged with a crime. Centrelink’s
Robodebts if found to have been done with intent were deemed welfare fraud. The
“smart criminals” are at NDIS & the APH victims were put swiftly in jail.
8.4h It seems though despite all the protestation from Labor
about the AG Brandis control of the Solicitor General’s office information feed,
if is a different story when the AG is highly compromised on issues that will result
in online censorships. Despite the public purse that I pay towards, that
funds the wages for the solicitors in both offices, I’m advised by the AG’s
office, who were not a listed recipient on my email, that if I have a question
on law, I have to pay myself for a solicitor outside both office’s to do a job
that should have already been public purse paid for.
8.4i AG Rowland’s is the former Minister for Communication
under which social media suspensions & character defamations were occurring.
When my accounts were been suspended the timing is unmistakenly that it was for
electoral interference. I have no hesitation in going on public record that it
is my belief that the Australian Labor Party & their state counterparts
have been behind my suspensions. They are the worst trolls on the internet. Covid19
is being exposed now as a worldwide fraud that had an intent to do physical harm
to Australian citizens. This has been
done to conceal Robodebt data matching was running illegal all along under
Labor too. The censorships were maliciously done & I am in no doubt if Labor
gets through the U16 Bill it will be misusing the age verification logon
process ever election.
8.4j Labor gave Robodebt the constitutional power with the
Data Match Act 1990. Labor was running data matches illegally too. In fact,
when I look at all the dirty rotten Acts that have been done against citizens,
they have been bipartisan basic building blocks just rebranded. Eg Basics Card
rebranded as Cashless Welfare Card.
8.4k Quoting the 27 March 2015 ABC article that will
probably disappear shortly “basic building block in nearly every
counter-terrorism, counter-espionage and organised crime investigation”. The
citizens were not the criminals APH was. The Data Match Act 1990 was to amass
as much information as was possible for plausibility & see who they could
bluff & bully people into paying up fraudulent debts. The new program to replace ISIS was part &
parcel the first approvals for the feasibility were announced Feb 2015 $16+M (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965907/We-running-turbocharged-Commodore-64-age-iPhone-Minister-warns-Centrelink-s-computer-handles-payments-worth-100-billion-year-disaster-waiting-happen.html).
8.5a Metadata 2015’s legality should have been looked at
savagely when Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 better known as AABill
was rushed through parliament. AABill was a bipartisan policy with Shorten
& his deputy Plibersik’s Labor in Opposition supporting alleging there was
an imminent terrorist emergency. There was no emergency & the Act is still
active. Nothing but lies. It was just
another “basic building block” to breach the privacy of citizens without lawful
warrants. 2018 I had won my data match Robodebt case mid-2018 AAT. My public
AAT case blew out of the water any notion that the data being gathered was being
responsibly treated by APH. I made it publicly clear I would be fighting to get
credits for a very lot of other people. When many stopped at 400K victims (the
collateral damage) I kept going proving it there were far more victims going
all the way back. We are now up to an estimated 3M victims. (https://theconversation.com/the-ghost-of-robodebt-federal-court-rules-billions-of-dollars-in-welfare-debts-must-be-recalculated-261543).
8.5b Bipartisan Labor & Liberals rushed through AABill
2018 & pushed aside Newstart rises when people were starving to death on a social
security payment that was so far below the poverty line it was a joke. An awful
lot of criminal lies were pumped out to the media that the problems were just limited
to the new algorithm. Lies that the data match problems were only about the new
program. In point of fact 2016 when Gleeson final blew his lid it was a leap
year. That is highly significant because Centrelink’s 26 fortnight estimates multiplied
by 14 days equals only 364 days & there was every possibility that another
payday could have resulted in a leap year. 2016 was when the new data match
system was being trialled. The reality was the Data Match Act 1990 Centrelink
to ATO never worked manual or by computer. APH was also doing illegal threats
forcing payments in contravention of the Act, our Superannuation money had been
shifted to the control of Services Australia lookalike & a lot more. Have a
good look at this picture, because Labor in my opinion perverted the course of
justice with the Gordon Legal action & the restricted context of RC
Robodebt.
8.6 I have been releasing my research on Robodebt &
other health & welfare matters on Social Media like others. The Gordon Action
was a politically legal farce & attempt to limit accountability to a collateral
damage to only 400K & not look at Labor years. Just based on 1 year I had
estimated my concerns to RC Robodebt that there were potentially 2M data match
victims. Did anyone hear a peep out of E-Safety as people with illegal Robodebts
were being threatened by government that if they spoke out online govt they would
publicly have their private Centrelink records breached? Did anyone here a peep
out from the Office of the Australian Information Commission (OAIC)? No. Building
block E-Safety didn’t give a stuff & OAIC supported the actions of APH
& cleared Centrelink. (https://www.minterellison.com/articles/oaic-investigation-clears-centrelink-of-wrongdoing#:~:text=On%2029%20May%202018%2C%20the,under%20the%20Commonwealth%20Privacy%20Act.).
9 The U16 censorship Bill serves 2 purposes. Firstly, it is
another “basic building block” enabling the step towards digital identity data
gathering by APH of adults without a warrant showing just cause. Secondly, it is establishing a controlled
mindset that in younger generations that access to the internet & freedom
of speech thereon is a privilege being given at the whim of APH.
10 If my assertions are found legally correct Ms Rowlands
& senior officers of the communications ministry & ACMA have been
committing harmful offences against the Australian citizens that are offences
under the Crimes Act 1995 & unempowered. That there appears to be a
concerted effort to prevent my questions being asked by the conflicted Attorney
General’s secretaries should be considered proof my assertions hold water.
Before even we consider the number of legal cases the E-Safety Commissioner is
losing on censorship.
11 Labor has recently announced it is cutting mental health
cases from NDIS. Labor government a few years back was accommodating people identifying
themselves as dogs with pronouns Woof/Woof to nudge up their digital identity pursuit.
All of which was ignored by E-Safety. Does Anyone seriously think that this latest
stunt is about child safety.
Comments
Post a Comment