The Online Safety Act 2021 **Part 6** specifically addresses "Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images," establishing that:
1. **Platforms face civil penalties**: Section 75-81 of the Online Safety Act gives the eSafety Commissioner power to issue "removal notices" requiring platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images within 24 hours or face civil penalties [3].
The eSafety Commissioner can issue "formal warnings" (section 76, 81) if platforms fail to comply [3].
2. **Individual criminal liability exists in state legislation**: Each Australian state and territory has introduced **separate criminal offences** for individuals who share intimate images without consent.
Western Australia's Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2019 introduced offences under section 221BF of the WA Criminal Code criminalizing distribution of intimate images [5].
The federal Online Safety Act 2021 deliberately focuses on **platform regulation** (civil penalties), while **criminal prosecution of individuals** remains the responsibility of state and territory police and courts under state law [7].
The claim omits several critical pieces of information:
1. **Dual regulatory framework**: Australia uses a federal-state division of powers where the Commonwealth regulates online services and platforms (Online Safety Act 2021), while states/territories have criminal jurisdiction over individuals.
This is a constitutional feature, not a Coalition failure [8].
2. **State criminal laws already existed**: Before the Online Safety Act 2021, several states had already introduced criminal offences for non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Western Australia's Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2019 (passed during Coalition government) created criminal liability for individuals [5].
3. **24-hour removal requirement**: The claim suggests platforms can evade consequences, but the Online Safety Act requires platforms to remove content within 24 hours or face enforcement action by the eSafety Commissioner [3].
This timeframe was established because "the longer an intimate image shared without consent is available online, the more harmful it can be for the victim" [9].
4. **Platform compliance rates**: The eSafety Commissioner's powers have achieved high compliance rates.
The Commissioner reported being able to achieve prompt removal times through cooperative industry engagement, with platforms typically removing over 90% of reported image-based abuse within 24 hours [9].
5. **Federal criminal offences added in 2024**: After 2023, privacy and doxxing reforms introduced new federal criminal offences under the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 for the intentional malicious exposure of personal data online in a menacing or harassing manner, which can include intimate images [10].
However, without reviewing their full contents (the links are not directly accessible), the context suggests they relate to legislative or inquiry material.
The claim itself appears to misrepresent the legislative framework by suggesting federal criminal penalties should have been included in the Online Safety Act 2021, when federal criminal law is limited to matters of interstate/international significance or specific areas like doxxing (added in 2024) [12].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Labor governments (both federal and state) have introduced their own versions of image-based abuse legislation.
* * * *
The issue is not unique to Coalition governance:
- **NSW (Labor government 2015-2019)**: Introduced criminal offences for non-consensual sharing of intimate images
- **Victoria (Labor government)**: Introduced similar criminal offences in state legislation
- **Federal Labor**: When Labor returned to government in 2022, they expanded federal privacy laws and introduced federal doxxing offences (Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024) but also relied on the same federal-state regulatory split [10]
- **Labor policy position**: Labor has not advocated for federal criminal offences to replace state laws on intimate images; they've instead strengthened federal privacy protections
The dual federal-state framework for addressing image-based abuse is a systemic feature of Australian constitutional law, not a Coalition-specific policy choice.
**Arguments supporting the claim's concern:**
Critics argue that victims might find it confusing that federal regulation (platform removal) proceeds through civil penalties while prosecution of individuals occurs through state laws.
The claim raises a legitimate question about legislative clarity and victim protection coordination.
**Legitimate explanations and context:**
1. **Constitutional limitations**: Australia's Constitution divides power between Commonwealth and states.
The Commonwealth has limited power to create criminal offences, restricted to specific areas like crimes against the Commonwealth, using Commonwealth facilities, or interstate matters [15].
2. **Efficient regulation**: Having the eSafety Commissioner (federal) regulate platforms quickly and standardly across all states, while state police/courts handle individual perpetrators, provides coordination.
Multiple states don't need to individually regulate the same platforms [16].
3. **Pre-existing state frameworks**: States had already criminalized image-based abuse before the Online Safety Act 2021.
The Coalition strengthened federal platform regulation without needing to displace existing state prosecutions [5].
4. **High platform compliance**: The 24-hour removal requirement has proven effective.
Industry cooperation has achieved removal rates exceeding 90%, minimizing ongoing harm while individual cases proceed through state courts [9].
5. **2024 expansions**: The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Coalition government's final years / Labor continuation) added federal doxxing offences, expanding federal criminal jurisdiction [10].
**Comparison to Labor's approach:**
Labor governments have not restructured this framework upon returning to power in 2022.
They've instead built upon the Coalition's Online Safety Act 2021, confirming the federal-state split is the intended model [13].
**Key context**: This is not unique to the Coalition - it's a constitutional feature of Australian federalism that requires coordination between federal platform regulation and state individual prosecution.
The claim is **technically accurate** that the Online Safety Act 2021 focuses on platform penalties (civil) rather than individual criminal penalties (which remain in state law).
It frames a constitutional feature (federal-state cooperation) as a legislative failure
The claim would be more accurate if it stated: "The Online Safety Act 2021 regulates platforms (civil penalties) rather than individuals (who face criminal prosecution under state law), reflecting Australia's constitutional division of powers."
The claim is **technically accurate** that the Online Safety Act 2021 focuses on platform penalties (civil) rather than individual criminal penalties (which remain in state law).
It frames a constitutional feature (federal-state cooperation) as a legislative failure
The claim would be more accurate if it stated: "The Online Safety Act 2021 regulates platforms (civil penalties) rather than individuals (who face criminal prosecution under state law), reflecting Australia's constitutional division of powers."