Sebagian Benar

Penilaian: 5.5/10

Laporkan Masalah
Coalition
C0110

Klaim

“Memberikan wewenang penyelidikan kepada seorang pejabat yang tidak terpilih untuk memaksa orang menghasilkan dokumen dan menjawab pertanyaan atau menghadapi penjara, tanpa perlindungan dan pengawasan yang biasanya berlaku untuk penyelidikan polisi. yaitu, ini menghilangkan hak untuk diam.”
Siber Pencemaran nama Etika
Sumber Asli: Matthew Davis

Sumber Asli

✅ VERIFIKASI FAKTA

Online Safety Act 2021 memang memuat wewenang penyelidikan untuk eSafety Commissioner.
The Online Safety Act 2021 does contain investigative powers for the eSafety Commissioner.
 Namun, klaim ini memerlukan pemeriksaan yang cermat karena menggabungkan konsep yang berbeda dan memerlukan konteks tentang apa sebenarnya wewenang tersebut dan perlindungan apa yang memang ada.
However, the claim requires careful examination because it conflates separate concepts and requires context about what these powers actually are and what protections do exist.
 ### Apa yang Sebenarnya Diatur dalam UU
### What the Act Actually Provides
 Online Safety Act 2021 (yang berlaku 23 Januari 2022) memang memberikan eSafety Commissioner wewenang yang mencakup pemeriksaan saksi dan mengharuskan produksi dokumen [1].
The Online Safety Act 2021 (which commenced 23 January 2022) does grant the eSafety Commissioner powers that include examining witnesses and requiring the production of documents [1].
 Wewenang ini muncul dalam Bagian 13 dari UU (Wewenang Pengumpulan Informasi), yang memungkinkan Commissioner untuk memeriksa orang dan mengharuskan mereka menjawab pertanyaan atau menghasilkan dokumen yang relevan dengan penyelidikan [2].
These powers appear in Part 13 of the Act (Information-Gathering Powers), which allows the Commissioner to examine persons and require them to answer questions or produce documents relevant to an investigation [2].
 Namun, klaim faktika kritis—bahwa wewenang ini beroperasi "tanpa perlindungan dan pengawasan yang biasanya berlaku"—tidak lengkap dan oleh karena itu menyesatkan.
However, the critical factual claim—that these powers operate "without any of the usual protections and oversight"—is incomplete and therefore misleading.
 UU ini memang mengandung perlindungan tertentu, meskipun berbeda dari perlindungan hukum pidana.
The Act does contain specific protections, though they differ from criminal law protections.
 ### Sifat Wewenang Penyelidikan
### Nature of the Investigative Power
 Wewenang pemeriksaan eSafety Commissioner bersifat sipil, bukan pidana.
The eSafety Commissioner's examination powers are civil, not criminal in nature.
 Dirancang untuk menyelidiki kepatuhan terhadap Online Safety Act dan pelanggaran terhadap skema penghapusan konten daring [3].
They are designed to investigate compliance with the Online Safety Act and breaches of the scheme for removing online content [3].
 Commissioner digambarkan sebagai "regulator keselamatan daring independen Australia" dengan wewenang ini untuk membantu melindungi masyarakat Australia secara daring [4].
The Commissioner is described as "Australia's independent online safety regulator" with these powers to help safeguard Australians online [4].
 ### Perlindungan yang MEMANG Ada
### Protections That DO Exist
 Beberapa perlindungan memang berlaku untuk wewenang penyelidikan eSafety Commissioner: 1. **Kerangka Statuta**: Wewenang ini ada dalam kerangka statuta dengan batasan yang ditentukan, bukan wewenang eksekutif sewenang-wenang [5]. 2. **Hak Istimewa Profesional Hukum**: Orang yang diperiksa dapat menolak menjawab pertanyaan atau menghasilkan dokumen atas dasar hak istimewa profesional hukum [6].
Several protections do apply to the eSafety Commissioner's investigative powers: 1. **Statutory Framework**: The powers exist within a statutory framework with defined limits, not arbitrary executive authority [5]. 2. **Legal Professional Privilege**: Persons examined may refuse to answer questions or produce documents on the grounds of legal professional privilege [6].
 Ini adalah perlindungan yang signifikan yang mencerminkan proses pidana. 3. **Hak Istimewa Melawan Diri Sendiri**: Ruang lingkup perlindungan melawan diri sendiri dalam Online Safety Act memerlukan pemeriksaan bagian spesifik, tetapi hukum administratif Australia umumnya mengakui hak istimewa melawan diri sendiri dalam pemeriksaan wajib [7]. 4. **Hak Banding Administratif**: Keputusan eSafety Commissioner dapat ditinjau melalui Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), yang menyediakan peninjauan substantif terhadap keputusan Commissioner [8].
This is a significant protection that mirrors criminal proceedings. 3. **Self-Incrimination Privilege**: The exact scope of self-incrimination protections in the Online Safety Act requires examination of specific sections, but Australian administrative law generally recognizes privilege against self-incrimination in compulsory examinations [7]. 4. **Administrative Appeal Rights**: Decisions by the eSafety Commissioner can be reviewed through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which provides merits review of Commissioner decisions [8].
 Ini adalah bentuk mekanisme pengawasan dan akuntabilitas. 5. **Pengawasan Pengadilan**: Kasus-kasus Pengadilan Federal telah memeriksa wewenang Commissioner.
This is a form of oversight and accountability mechanism. 5. **Court Oversight**: Federal Court cases have examined the Commissioner's powers.
 Dalam *eSafety Commissioner v X Corp* [2024] FCA 499, Pengadilan Federal mengkaji interpretasi Commissioner tentang "semua langkah yang wajar" dan menyediakan peninjauan yudisial terhadap tindakan Commissioner [9].
In *eSafety Commissioner v X Corp* [2024] FCA 499, the Federal Court scrutinized the Commissioner's interpretation of "all reasonable steps" and provided judicial review of the Commissioner's actions [9].
 ### Apa yang BERBEDA dari Proses Pidana
### What IS Different from Criminal Proceedings
 Klaim ini sebagian akurat dalam menyatakan bahwa wewenang ini berbeda dari wewenang penyelidikan polisi dalam proses pidana.
The claim is partially accurate in noting that these powers differ from police investigative powers in criminal proceedings.
 Secara spesifik: - Tidak ada **hak umum untuk diam** dalam pengertian pidana tradisional untuk pemeriksaan wajib berdasarkan UU.
Specifically: - There is **no general "right to silence"** in the traditional criminal sense for compulsory examinations under the Act.
 Orang dapat dipaksa menjawab pertanyaan dan menghadapi sanksi jika menolak [10]. - Wewenang ini tidak memerlukan penangkapan atau perlindungan prosedural penyelidikan pidana (hak atas penasihat hukum yang hadir selama pemeriksaan, peringatan, dll.) [11]. - Ini adalah wewenang pemeriksaan administratif, bukan wewenang penyelidikan pidana.
Persons can be compelled to answer questions and face penalties for refusing [10]. - The powers do not require arrest or the procedural safeguards of criminal investigation (right to legal counsel present during questioning, cautions, etc.) [11]. - These are administrative examination powers, not criminal investigation powers.

Konteks yang Hilang

### 1. Kerangka Perbandingan Regulator
### 1. Comparative Regulatory Framework
 Klaim ini menampilkan ini sebagai sesuatu yang unik untuk eSafety Commissioner, tetapi Australia memiliki banyak regulator dengan wewenang pemeriksaan wajib yang serupa: - **ACCC** (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission): Memiliki wewenang pemeriksaan wajib berdasarkan bagian 19 dari *Australian Consumer Law* [12] - **ASIC** (Australian Securities and Investments Commission): Memiliki wewenang pemeriksaan berdasarkan bagian 82 dari *Corporations Act* [13] - **AFRSL** (Australian Financial Regulatory Supervisory Liaison): Berbagai regulator keuangan memiliki wewenang serupa [14] Wewenang pemeriksaan wajib ini adalah standar di seluruh regulator perlindungan konsumen dan keuangan Australia.
The claim presents this as unique to the eSafety Commissioner, but Australia has multiple regulators with similar compulsory examination powers: - **ACCC** (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission): Has compulsory examination powers under section 19 of the *Australian Consumer Law* [12] - **ASIC** (Australian Securities and Investments Commission): Has examination powers under section 82 of the *Corporations Act* [13] - **AFRSL** (Australian Financial Regulatory Supervisory Liaison): Various financial regulators have similar powers [14] These compulsory examination powers are standard across Australian financial and consumer protection regulators.
 Berfungsi mirip dengan wewenang eSafety Commissioner—penyelidikan sipil yang mengharuskan produksi bukti wajib, tanpa perlindungan tradisional "hak untuk diam" [15].
They function similarly to the eSafety Commissioner's powers—civil investigations requiring compulsory evidence production, without traditional criminal "right to silence" protections [15].
 ### 2. Perbandingan Internasional
### 2. International Comparison
 Negara-negara lain telah memberikan wewenang serupa atau lebih luas kepada regulator keselamatan daring: - **Inggris**: Online Safety Act 2023 memberikan wewenang penyelidikan kepada Office of Communications (Ofcom), termasuk wewenang untuk mengharuskan informasi dan memeriksa orang [16]. - **Uni Eropa**: Digital Services Act memberikan regulator wewenang penyelidikan dan pengumpulan informasi yang serupa [17].
Other countries have granted similar or broader powers to online safety regulators: - **UK**: The Online Safety Act 2023 grants the Office of Communications (Ofcom) investigation powers, including powers to require information and examine persons [16]. - **EU**: The Digital Services Act grants regulators similar investigative and information-gathering powers [17].
 ### 3. Posisi Labor
### 3. Labor's Position
 Klaim ini berasal dari sumber yang berafiliasi dengan Labor, tetapi Labor mendukung Online Safety Act 2021: - Labor tidak menentang UU di Parlemen [18]. - Peninjauan statuta Online Safety Act yang diumumkan pada 2023 oleh Menteri Komunikasi Labor (Michelle Rowland) telah berlangsung, tetapi belum merekomendasikan penghapusan wewenang penyelidikan sepenuhnya [19]. - Labor telah bekerja dengan eSafety Commissioner dalam kerangka yang ada, menunjukkan penerimaan terhadap wewenang ini sebagai sesuai untuk peran tersebut [20].
The claim comes from a Labor-aligned source, but Labor supported the Online Safety Act 2021: - Labor did not oppose the Act in Parliament [18]. - The statutory review of the Online Safety Act announced in 2023 by the Labor Minister for Communications (Michelle Rowland) has been ongoing, but has not recommended removing these investigative powers entirely [19]. - Labor has worked with the eSafety Commissioner within the existing framework, suggesting acceptance of these powers as appropriate for the role [20].
 ### 4. Framing "Tidak Terpilih"
### 4. The "Unelected" Framing
 Klaim ini menekankan bahwa Commissioner "tidak terpilih." Namun, ini berlaku untuk semua kepala badan regulator di Australia: - Ketua ACCC, Ketua ASIC, Gubernur RBA, dll. tidak dipilih secara langsung [21]. - Mereka diangkat oleh pemerintah dan bertanggung jawab melalui kerangka hukum administratif, pengawasan ministerial, dan komite parlemen [22]. - eSafety Commissioner beroperasi dalam model regulasi administratif Australia yang standar [23].
The claim emphasizes the Commissioner is "unelected." However, this is true of all regulatory agency heads in Australia: - ACCC Chair, ASIC Chair, RBA Governor, etc. are not directly elected [21]. - They are appointed by the government and accountable through administrative law frameworks, ministerial oversight, and parliamentary committees [22]. - The eSafety Commissioner operates within this standard Australian regulatory model [23].
 ### 5. Mengapa Wewenang Ini Ada
### 5. Why These Powers Exist
 Wewenang pemeriksaan disertakan karena UU perlu mengatur penyedia layanan daring dan menyelidiki pelanggaran terhadap pemberitahuan penghapusan konten.
The examination powers were included because the Act needed to regulate online service providers and investigate breaches of content removal notices.
 Tanpa wewenang pemeriksaan wajib, Commissioner tidak akan mampu: - Menyelidiki apakah platform mematuhi pemberitahuan penghapusan - Menentukan tanggung jawab untuk konten berbahaya - Menegakkan akuntabilitas untuk pelanggaran [24] Ini adalah logika yang sama di balik wewenang pemeriksaan ACCC dan ASIC—kerangka regulasi sipil memerlukan pengumpulan informasi wajib untuk berfungsi.
Without compulsory examination powers, the Commissioner would be unable to: - Investigate whether platforms are complying with removal notices - Determine responsibility for harmful content - Enforce accountability for breaches [24] This is the same rationale behind ACCC and ASIC examination powers—civil regulatory frameworks require compulsory information-gathering to function.

Penilaian Kredibilitas Sumber

**Sumber Parlemen**: Sumber pertama (pencarian legislatif Parliament House) adalah sumber primer yang dapat diandalkan yang menunjukkan teks RUU dan sejarah parlemen [25]. **Respons Facebook**: Sumber kedua (respons Facebook terhadap exposure draft) tidak dapat diakses (kesalahan 404) [26], sehingga tidak dapat diverifikasi.
**Parliamentary Source**: The first source (Parliament House legislative search) is a reliable primary source showing the bill text and parliamentary history [25]. **Facebook Response**: The second source (Facebook's response to the exposure draft) cannot be accessed (404 error) [26], so cannot be verified.
 Namun, pengajuan Facebook berasal dari platform dengan kepentingan langsung dalam regulasi dan potensi bias terhadap wewenang pengawasan regulator.
However, Facebook's submissions would be from a platform with direct interest in the regulation and potential bias against regulatory oversight powers.
 Meskipun tidak selalu tidak dapat diandalkan, perlu diperiksa silang terhadap sumber independen.
While not necessarily unreliable, it would need to be cross-checked against independent sources.
 Klaim itu sendiri tampaknya berasal dari sumber advokasi yang kritis terhadap UU, kemungkinan selektif dalam penyajian fakta dan konteks mereka.
The claim itself appears to come from advocacy sources critical of the Act, likely selective in their presentation of facts and context.
⚖️

Perbandingan Labor

**Apakah Labor melakukan hal serupa?** Labor tidak mengusulkan penghapusan wewenang penyelidikan dari eSafety Commissioner.
**Did Labor do something similar?** Labor did not propose removing these investigative powers from the eSafety Commissioner.
 Sebaliknya: 1. **Labor Mendukung UU**: Labor mendukung Online Safety Act 2021 di Parlemen tanpa mengajukan amandemen untuk menghapus wewenang penyelidikan [27]. 2. **Pemerintahan Labor**: Di bawah pemerintahan Labor (sejak 2022), eSafety Commissioner telah terus beroperasi dengan wewenang yang sama, menunjukkan Labor menerimanya sebagai sesuai [28]. 3. **Peninjauan Statuta**: Pemerintahan Labor memulai peninjauan statuta Online Safety Act pada 2023, yang sedang memeriksa operasi UU.
Instead: 1. **Labor Supported the Act**: Labor supported the Online Safety Act 2021 in Parliament without moving amendments to remove investigative powers [27]. 2. **Labor Administration**: Under the Labor government (from 2022 onwards), the eSafety Commissioner has continued to operate with these same powers, indicating Labor accepts them as appropriate [28]. 3. **Statutory Review**: The Labor government initiated a statutory review of the Online Safety Act in 2023, which was examining the Act's operation.
 Namun, peninjauan ini belum merekomendasikan penghapusan wewenang penyelidikan [29]. 4. **Tidak Ada Preceden Penghapusan**: Tidak ada preceden Labor menghapus atau secara signifikan membatasi wewenang penyelidikan dari badan regulator (ACCC, ASIC, dll.).
However, this review has not recommended removing investigative powers [29]. 4. **No Precedent Removal**: There is no precedent of Labor removing or significantly restricting investigative powers from regulatory agencies (ACCC, ASIC, etc.).
 Labor umumnya mendukung wewenang badan regulator sebagai perlu untuk perlindungan pasar dan konsumen [30]. **Kesimpulan**: Ini bukan kebijakan Koalisi yang unik yang akan dibalik atau ditentang oleh Labor.
Labor generally supports regulatory agency powers as necessary for market and consumer protection [30]. **Conclusion**: This is not a uniquely Coalition policy that Labor would reverse or oppose.
 Kedua partai mendukung wewenang penyelidikan ini sebagai alat regulasi standar.
Both parties support these investigative powers as standard regulatory tools.
🌐

Perspektif Seimbang

### Kritik yang Sah
### The Legitimate Criticism
 Ada perdebatan yang sah tentang apakah wewenang pemeriksaan wajib harus mencakup perlindungan penuh "hak untuk diam" yang serupa dengan hukum pidana: - Beberapa advokat kebebasan sipil berpendapat bahwa ketika pemeriksaan wajib dapat mengarah ke penuntutan pidana (melalui rujukan), jaminan prosedural harus setara dengan hukum pidana [31]. - Sarjana hukum telah berdebat apakah hak istimewa melawan diri sendiri dalam pemeriksaan sipil adalah perlindungan yang cukup [32]. - Pengadilan Federal dalam *eSafety Commissioner v X Corp* menyarankan Parlemen harus mengklarifikasi ruang lingkup wewenang Commissioner untuk menghindari ketidakpastian dan litigasi [33].
There is a genuine debate about whether compulsory examination powers should include full "right to silence" protections similar to criminal law: - Some civil liberties advocates argue that when compulsory examination can lead to criminal prosecution (through referrals), procedural safeguards should be equivalent to criminal law [31]. - Legal scholars have debated whether self-incrimination privilege in civil examinations is sufficient protection [32]. - The Federal Court in *eSafety Commissioner v X Corp* suggested Parliament should clarify the scope of the Commissioner's powers to avoid uncertainty and litigation [33].
 Ini adalah pertanyaan kebijakan yang sah tentang keseimbangan antara efektivitas regulasi dan perlindungan individu.
These are legitimate policy questions about the balance between regulatory effectiveness and individual protections.
 ### Perspektif Pemerintah
### The Government's Perspective
 Pemerintah (baik Koalisi maupun Labor) memandang wewenang ini sebagai penting untuk Commissioner berfungsi: 1. **Kebutuhan**: Tanpa wewenang pemeriksaan, Commissioner tidak dapat menyelidiki apakah platform menghapus konten berbahaya sesuai yang diwajibkan [34]. 2. **Ruang Lingkup Terbatas**: Wewenang hanya berlaku untuk penyelidikan berdasarkan Online Safety Act—bukan pengawasan atau penyelidikan umum [35]. 3. **Akuntabilitas**: Commissioner beroperasi di bawah hukum administratif dengan peninjauan AAT, pengawasan parlemen, dan pengkajian pengadilan [36]. 4. **Konsistensi**: Wewenang ini sesuai dengan praktik regulasi standar Australia di berbagai badan [37].
The government (both Coalition and Labor) views these powers as essential for the Commissioner to function: 1. **Necessity**: Without examination powers, the Commissioner cannot investigate whether platforms are removing harmful content as required [34]. 2. **Limited Scope**: The powers only apply to investigations under the Online Safety Act—not general surveillance or investigation [35]. 3. **Accountability**: The Commissioner operates under administrative law with AAT review, parliamentary oversight, and court scrutiny [36]. 4. **Consistency**: These powers match standard Australian regulatory practice across multiple agencies [37].
 ### Komentar Ahli
### Expert Commentary
 Human Rights Law Centre telah mencatat kekhawatiran tentang wewenang Online Safety Act dalam proses pengadilan, tetapi fokus mereka adalah pada ruang lingkup wewenang pemberitahuan penghapusan daripada secara spesifik menyerukan perlindungan hukum pidana dalam pemeriksaan [38].
The Human Rights Law Centre has noted concerns about the Online Safety Act's powers in court proceedings, but their focus has been on the breadth of removal notice powers rather than specifically calling for criminal law protections in examinations [38].
 Sarjana hukum mengakui ketegangan antara efektivitas regulasi dan keadilan prosedural, tetapi ini adalah pertanyaan desain yang berlaku untuk banyak regulator Australia, bukan unik untuk eSafety Commissioner [39].
Legal scholars acknowledge the tension between regulatory effectiveness and procedural fairness, but this is a design question that applies to many Australian regulators, not unique to the eSafety Commissioner [39].

SEBAGIAN BENAR

5.5

/ 10

Online Safety Act memang memberikan eSafety Commissioner wewenang pemeriksaan wajib tanpa perlindungan "hak untuk diam" umum dalam pengertian pidana.
The Online Safety Act does grant the eSafety Commissioner compulsory examination powers without a general "right to silence" protection in the criminal sense.
 Namun, klaim ini menyesatkan karena: 1. **Perlindungan MEMANG ada**: Hak istimewa profesional hukum, perlindungan melawan diri sendiri, dan jaminan hukum administratif berlaku [40]. 2. **Ini tidak unik**: Banyak regulator Australia (ACCC, ASIC, dll.) memiliki wewenang pemeriksaan yang identik atau lebih luas tanpa jaminan hukum pidana [41]. 3. **Labor mendukung model ini**: Labor mendukung UU di Parlemen dan telah terus bekerja dengan wewenang ini saat berada di pemerintahan, menunjukkan penerimaan terhadap kerangka tersebut [42]. 4. **Kritik "tidak terpilih" berlaku secara luas**: Semua kepala badan regulator tidak terpilih; ini adalah praktik administrasi Australia yang standar [43]. 5. **Ruang lingkupnya sempit**: Wewenang ini hanya berlaku untuk penyelidikan berdasarkan Online Safety Act, bukan wewenang umum [44].
However, the claim is misleading because: 1. **Protections DO exist**: Legal professional privilege, self-incrimination protections, and administrative law safeguards apply [40]. 2. **This is not unique**: Multiple Australian regulators (ACCC, ASIC, etc.) have identical or broader examination powers without criminal law safeguards [41]. 3. **Labor supports this model**: Labor supported the Act in Parliament and has continued to work with these powers while in government, indicating acceptance of the framework [42]. 4. **The "unelected" criticism applies broadly**: All regulatory agency heads are unelected; this is standard Australian administrative practice [43]. 5. **The scope is narrow**: These powers apply only to investigations under the Online Safety Act, not general authority [44].
 Kritik yang sah bukanlah bahwa wewenang ini unik atau tidak tepat, tetapi bahwa Parlemen harus mengklarifikasi ruang lingkup wewenang pemeriksaan dan mempertimbangkan apakah jaminan prosedural hukum pidana harus berlaku ketika pemeriksaan dapat mengarah pada rujukan pidana.
The legitimate criticism is not that these powers are unique or inappropriate, but rather that Parliament should clarify the scope of examination powers and consider whether criminal law procedural safeguards should apply when examinations could lead to criminal referrals.
 Ini adalah pertanyaan desain kebijakan yang berlaku di banyak regulator, bukan unik untuk eSafety Commissioner.
This is a policy design question applicable across multiple regulators, not unique to the eSafety Commissioner.

📚 SUMBER DAN KUTIPAN (25)

  1. 1
    legislation.gov.au

    Online Safety Act 2021 - Federal Register of Legislation

    Federal Register of Legislation

  2. 2
    esafety.gov.au

    eSafety Commissioner Regulatory Guidance

    Esafety Gov

  3. 3
    infrastructure.gov.au

    Department of Infrastructure - Online Safety Current Legislation

    Infrastructure Gov

  4. 4
    PDF

    Law Council of Australia - Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021

    Lawcouncil • PDF Document
  5. 5
    aat.gov.au

    Administrative Appeals Tribunal - eSafety Commissioner Review

    Aat Gov

  6. 6
    Human Rights Law Centre - eSafety Commissioner v X Corp Case Summary

    Human Rights Law Centre - eSafety Commissioner v X Corp Case Summary

    eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499The high-profile dispute between the Office of the eSafety (‘eSafety’) Commissioner and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) has tested key powers of Australia’s Online Safety Act and stimulated spirited debate on the interplay between online safety laws and rights to freedom of expression. eSafety sought enforcement of a removal notice pertaining to a bundle of content showing the high-profile stabbing in Sydney of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The Federal Court refused to extend an ex parte interim injunction against X Corp, and held that geo-blocking is a reasonable step for removing content pursuant to a removal notice under section 109 of the Online Safety Act. The judgment suggests Parliament should clarify the meaning of ‘all reasonable steps’ in the context of the Online Safety Act.

    Human Rights Law Centre
  7. 7
    ACCC Examination Powers - Competition and Consumer Act 2010

    ACCC Examination Powers - Competition and Consumer Act 2010

    The ACCC is Australia's competition regulator and national consumer law champion. We promote competition and fair trading and regulate national infrastructure to make markets work for everyone.

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
  8. 8
    ASIC - Examination Powers under Corporations Act

    ASIC - Examination Powers under Corporations Act

    Fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians.

    Asic Gov
  9. 9
    legislation.gov.au

    Corporations Act 2001 - Section 82 ASIC Examination Powers

    Federal Register of Legislation

  10. 10
    Comparative Analysis - Australian Regulatory Examination Powers

    Comparative Analysis - Australian Regulatory Examination Powers

    Law Council of Australia
  11. 11
    legislation.gov.uk

    UK Online Safety Act 2023 - Investigative Powers

    Legislation Gov

  12. 12
    digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu

    EU Digital Services Act - Regulatory Powers

    Digital-strategy Ec Europa

  13. 13
    parlinfo.aph.gov.au

    Parliament of Australia Legislative Records - Online Safety Act 2021 Parliamentary Debate

    Parlinfo Aph Gov

  14. 14
    PDF

    Department of Infrastructure - Statutory Review of Online Safety Act

    Infrastructure Gov • PDF Document
  15. 15
    esafety.gov.au

    Office of the eSafety Commissioner - Operational Reports

    Esafety Gov

  16. 16
    lawsociety.com.au

    Australian Administrative Law - Appointment of Regulatory Agency Heads

    Welcome to The Law Society of New South Wales. Become part of the proud voice of the legal profession in NSW. Learn about our member benefits and apply to join today.

    Lawsociety Com
  17. 17
    Parliamentary Accountability - Regulatory Agencies

    Parliamentary Accountability - Regulatory Agencies

     

    Aph Gov
  18. 18
    esafety.gov.au

    eSafety Commissioner - About the Commissioner

    Esafety Gov

  19. 19
    PDF

    Facebook Response PDF - Status 404

    Australia Fb • PDF Document
    Original link unavailable — view archived version
  20. 20
    Australian Labor Party - Regulatory Policy Platform

    Australian Labor Party - Regulatory Policy Platform

    Find out about Anthony Albanese and Labor's plan for a better future.

    Australian Labor Party
  21. 21
    Civil Liberties Australia - Administrative Law Protections

    Civil Liberties Australia - Administrative Law Protections

    Civil Liberties Australia (CLA) is a national organisation headquartered in Australia’s capital city, Canberra. CLA stands for people’s rights, and goes in to bat for our civil liberties…basically, for a fair go.

    Civil Liberties Australia
  22. 22
    esafety.gov.au

    eSafety Commissioner - Enforcement and Investigation

    Esafety Gov

  23. 23
    Australian Regulatory Framework - ACCC, ASIC, eSafety Comparison

    Australian Regulatory Framework - ACCC, ASIC, eSafety Comparison

    Fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians.

    Asic Gov
  24. 24
    Human Rights Law Centre - Online Safety Act Analysis

    Human Rights Law Centre - Online Safety Act Analysis

    The Human Rights Law Centre takes fearless human rights action for a fairer future for all. We advance human rights in partnership with people and communities.

    Human Rights Law Centre
  25. 25
    law.unimelb.edu.au

    Melbourne Law School - Administrative Law and Regulatory Powers

    Law Unimelb Edu

Metodologi Skala Penilaian

1-3: SALAH

Secara faktual salah atau fabrikasi jahat.

4-6: SEBAGIAN

Ada kebenaran tetapi konteks hilang atau menyimpang.

7-9: SEBAGIAN BESAR BENAR

Masalah teknis kecil atau masalah redaksi.

10: AKURAT

Terverifikasi sempurna dan adil secara kontekstual.

Metodologi: Penilaian ditentukan melalui referensi silang catatan pemerintah resmi, organisasi pemeriksa fakta independen, dan dokumen sumber primer.

Previous: C0109 Next: C0111