“The political spin this last week presented the Albanese government as leaders in managing the new Digital Age. Indeed, our experts may be. But the sad truth is that this government, when given the ball, kicked it into the long grass. It’s still there, three years later,” writes HUGH SELBY.

Nearly three years ago a Senate committee released a lengthy, important report about what the biggest tech players (all of them based outside Australia and all with multinational reach), such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are doing to us all (from babes to great grandparents) each and every day as we use our phones and our computers.

You can find the full report here.

The focus of the terms of reference was the tangible and intangible, direct and indirect, exercise of power by these Big Tech corporations not only in the markets of goods and services, but also in our public awareness.

How much choice is really left to consumers with respect to what internet tools we can access, what games and apps we can find, buy and use, and what’s left of our ability to keep information about ourselves to ourselves?

The terms of reference do not use words such as shaping, controlling, directing, but that’s the obvious point of interest. “Manipulate” is used with respect to Big Tech’s algorithms.

Algorithms are a step-by-step approach to problem solving, doing calculations, completing a specific task. They are par excellence providers of solutions.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. Algorithms can lead to online harms including radicalisation, cause exposure to harmful material a user would not have sought, and repetitively reinforce harmful messaging, such as hate speech [para 6.8 et seq].

The “genius” of today’s algorithms is that their solutions reflect the inputs of the collected data about each particular user: that is, they customise for each inquirer.

The collection and use of that personal data is discussed in the report. Such data can also be used to manipulate user behaviour [para 5.6]. An example is using the collected data to target a user weakness, such as in alcohol marketing [para 5.7].

In the European Union consumers can request a record of data held about them, and there are ways to have it deleted [para 5.91]. Not so here.

Wondering why I had no recollection of the report or public discussion of it, I asked AI to tell me what was the media coverage. That’s how I learned that The Guardian newspaper had highlighted a report recommendation for a “digital platforms” co-ordination body, pulling together all the efforts of existing watchers of this digital “free for all”.

The report includes a valuable chapter addressing issues around child safety risks that include:

• friend/follower suggestions that can pressure children to interact with strangers and recommend dangerous accounts; 
• encouraging ‘doom scrolling’, which can limit exposure to diverse content, and deliver problematic content; 

• encouraging dangerous viral challenges;

• promoting beauty stereotypes which may be unrealistic or harmful; 

• normalising the sexualisation of young people; and 

• recommending content that may be appropriate for adults but harmful to children who are not developmentally ready for it (i.e. violent or sexually explicit material) [para 8.8].

Those risks flow not only from what sites children can access, but also from how the data collected from child users is used.

AI asserted that the media reported the report’s recommendation for a mandatory industry code governing how the Big Tech platforms collect, profile, and make an income from children’s online data. 

However, the link given by AI did not substantiate this claim of media reporting of this important recommendation.

 This is a timely reminder, as the AI answer itself says, that AI makes mistakes, that its answers must be checked.

Buried in an unmarked grave

The report followed 14 months of work that included evaluating 77 submissions and having three days of public hearings. It warranted a lot more attention than it got.

The lack then, and now, of much interest in this report reflects in part that those who did all the work failed to ask, “How do we present this report so that readers will be interested?”.

There’s no synopsis of the key issues, no summary of recommendations, nothing to show how the committee and its researchers would prioritise their concerns. 

Lacking those now common aids to understanding, the report is a hard slog for anyone who is not inside the tent of the digital revolution.

There are eight recommendations, all of which properly reflect the material discussed in the report. They are found in the closing few pages. They include: 

• establishing a digital platforms coordination body;

• prohibiting anti-competitive practices, such as bundling products and payment methods together. This bundling excludes other payment options that compete with Big Tech’s preferred payment method;

• require disclosure whenever a digital platform preferences itself when responding to a query from a user;

• set up dispute resolution requirements, AND empower a tribunal to deal with small disputes;

• require reporting on a range of Big Tech activities, such as personal data collection and profiling;

• Create an enforceable right for a person to have personal data deleted; and,

• Create an enforceable code for the collection, use and retention of children’s data. [paras 10.33 – 73].

Useful outcomes come with respect

I learned of this report when searching the too long list of ignored Committee reports helpfully assembled at toohardbasket.org.au by the public-spirited Mr Hewitt. (CityNews published an article about his efforts to disinter buried reports recently. It’s here.)

Easy to read or not, parliamentary committee output is not something to be treated with disdain and disinterest. 

The politicians invite the submissions, which take a lot of time to put together. They ask busy people with relevant experience to appear at public hearings and share their knowledge.

Failing to give a reasoned response within a few months of report publication is insulting to all those who put in the effort. It is rude. It is demeaning. It is disrespectful.

Now that we all know that so many committee reports languish unheeded, those with valuable information may decide to ignore the calls to take part. Why bother?

What’s more that neglect is keeping us, the community, the voters, in the dark about information that should be widely disseminated.

In the three years that Albo’s government couldn’t be bothered to share with us a response to this report – which has an insightful chapter on AI – there have been rapid developments in the power and reach of AI.

I note that the report includes, after its recommendations, a section setting out the two government senators’ additional comments. They address each of the recommendations, largely with the response that issues are being looked at, the right decisions will be reached in the fullness of time.

Suffice to say, they wrote it three years ago: promises, promises.

Some dug up insights from the report

Here are some insights from the 2023 report that are topical given Albo’s recently found national and international interest in what AI should do and not do.

It’s useful to consider these insights within the framework developed by our Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources’ “Australia’s AI Ethics Principles” first released in 2019 and updated to 2025. 

The principles are: 

• Human, societal and environmental wellbeing: AI systems should benefit individuals, society and the environment. 

• Human-centred values: AI systems should respect human rights, diversity, and the autonomy of individuals. 

• Fairness: AI systems should be inclusive and accessible, and should not involve or result in unfair discrimination against individuals, communities or groups. 

• Privacy protection and security: AI systems should respect and uphold privacy rights and data protection, and ensure the security of data. 

• Reliability and safety: AI systems should reliably operate in accordance with their intended purpose. 

• Transparency and explainability: There should be transparency and responsible disclosure so people can understand when they are being significantly impacted by AI, and can find out when an AI system is engaging with them. 

• Contestability: When an AI system significantly impacts a person, community, group or environment, there should be a timely process to allow people to challenge the use or outcomes of the AI system. 

• Accountability: People responsible for the different phases of the AI system lifecycle should be identifiable and accountable for the outcomes of the AI systems, and human oversight of AI systems should be enabled [para 9.38].

The first insight is to acknowledge the significant and continuing investment by Big Tech in our economy. For example, Amazon Prime had, by 2023, commissioned 27 original series in Australia for a cost of more than $150 million. Google’s “Grow with Google” program had provided free digital skills training to more than a half million of us.

Nevertheless, because there are so few players (each of which has vast resources) it is well-nigh impossible for new entrants to succeed. Where a new entrant might succeed Big Tech practice is to buy it, either to then use it or eliminate it from the marketplace.

Another way to misuse market power is to “self-preference”. An example is Google displaying paid Google Play and You Tube to access a TV show that could be seen for free [para 3.31].

Both Google and Apple dominate customer access to app stores. Apple goes further by restricting access to stores other than its own [para 3.36]

Another example of preventing competition is that e-books purchased through Amazon can be easily read only on Amazon Kindle devices [para 3.69]. This is unacceptable as there are a range of high-quality alternative e-readers. Consumers would benefit from real choice.

That exclusion of competition is not allowed in the European Union under its Digital Markets law [para 3.129]

It’s easy for Big Tech to enforce an approach in Australia of “Do it our way or there’s no way”. Customers have no choice about the terms of an agreement, for example, to advertise. When Big Tech wants to collect data it gets its way because that’s what customers agree to as part of using the product that they want.

Only government legislation and regulation can empower consumers so that Big Tech acts reasonably.

An unexpected “this is wrong” came from the telco Optus, which claimed to be exploited by the “large streamers” such as Netflix and Facebook.

Because there is so much streaming traffic, the telcos have to invest to meet demand. Optus wants the streamers to contribute, as happens in parts of Europe.

The telcos are not the only businesses complaining about the streamers. Our homegrown screen producers claim to be the victims of unfair contract terms which give the streamers so much at the expense of local producers and creative contributors [para 4.33]

A simple example of how the algorithms affect our national identity is the order within which search results appear on our computer and phone screens. Whether it’s film, music, essays, opinions, images it would be nice to be able to ensure that our locally produced content is highlighted and appears early in any listings.

Quite apart from what Big Tech does and doesn’t do to serve its profit interests, there are other actors who use the digital platforms for fraud. 

Meta told the committee that, as of late 2022, it had found more than 400 malicious apps that were designed to steal Facebook login information. These apps were listed on Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store, disguised as photo editors, games, VPN services, business apps and other utilities to trick people into downloading them [para 7.26].

While it’s clear that Big Tech does search for, and remove malicious apps, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) considered that their efforts were inadequate, pointing to such shortcomings as:

• Failing to act when users report scams, harmful apps and fake reviews;

• Failing to impose robust identify verification systems to deter scammers;

• Failing to properly vet advertisements that are investment scams; and,

• Failing to share with the community what steps they take to ensure that reviews of goods and services are not fake [para 7.31].

The report contains many insights and supporting detail, drawn from the submissions and spoken evidence, that I have not mentioned in this article.

I have barely touched how other countries have responded to the same problems, or how Big Tech makes hay in countries, such as Australia, that have stalled on taking action to make them act for reasons beyond pure profit. 

That stalling is not for lack of expert, clear advice. The report is awash with insightful reflections and suggestions from public servants, and informed spokespeople from special interest groups in the digital tech industries, human rights and consumer protection.

The political spin this last week presented Albo’s government as leaders in managing the new Digital Age. Indeed, our experts may be. But the sad truth is that his government, when given the ball, kicked it into the long grass. It’s still there, three years later.

Hugh Selby is a CityNews columnist, usually concerned with legal affairs. 

News all day, every day at CityNewsQBN.com.au.