11 August 2023

Constitutionalising Rights of Nature

Enshrining rights of nature in the Irish Constitution? The 2023 report from the Citizens Assembly on Biodiversity Loss offers the following recommendations 

1.1 Overarching Recommendations 

The Assembly believes that the State’s response to the biodiversity crisis requires effective leadership, clear vison and an enabling environment for action. The response to conserving and restoring biodiversity should take into account the integral heritage and cultural values of our natural world. 

1. The State must take prompt, decisive and urgent action to address biodiversity loss and restoration and must provide leadership in protecting Ireland’s biodiversity for future generations. 

2. The Assembly believes that the State has comprehensively failed to adequately fund, implement and enforce existing national legislation, national policies, EU biodiversity-related laws and directives related to biodiversity. This must change. 

3. The ambition of the State needs to be significantly increased to reflect the scale of Ireland’s biodiversity crisis. Adequate funding must be made available to address this crisis. This is likely to require substantial and sustained increases in expenditure, which should be made available immediately and guaranteed in the long term. 

4. The responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity related legislation, directives and policies by all state bodies and agencies must be made clear, with each body/ agency held publicly accountable for their performance. This should be supported by an independent review of implementation and enforcement of biodiversity related legislation, directives and policies. 

5. The State must provide, communicate and implement a plan for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity for the benefit of its people. 

6. Local leadership, local communities and the activities of the Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector must be actively developed and resourced to assist the State in addressing the biodiversity crisis. 

7. In taking action to protect and restore biodiversity, nature-based solutions aimed at protecting, sustainably managing and restoring ecosystems should be prioritised where possible. 

8. As a matter of urgency areas and species of High Nature Value, including but not limited to the national network of Natura 2000 sites and protected species, should be protected from further degradation through the implementation and enforcement of existing legislation and directives. Management plans should also include restoration programmes. 

9. Ireland’s varied land and seascapes across and around the island must be supported, and appropriate monitoring systems designed to suit their local environment. Higher incentives and supports should be provided to prioritise the preservation and restoration of rare and threatened species. 

10. Ireland needs to recognise its global responsibility, including through our local actions, in terms of our consumerism, resource usage and our international biodiversity responsibilities. The State should advocate for a shift in emphasis in EU and international economic policy away from GDP expansion as a goal in itself and towards the goals of societal and ecological wellbeing. 

11. An all-island approach and wider transboundary approach should be taken into consideration with regard to biodiversity conservation and restoration. 

12. The State should renew and stand by its commitment to implement the objectives and targets of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and play a leading and supportive role in the adoption and implementation of a new EU Nature Restoration Regulation. 

13. All governmental departments must explicitly acknowledge the State’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency and take immediate and targeted action. 

14. All biodiversity incentives and grants should be results-based, supported by monitoring and evaluation. 

15. People in primary production industries should implement practices that conserve biodiversity and be incentivised for biodiversity enhancement and associated ecosystem service provision. 

16. The State must work with all stakeholders to review Ireland’s current food policy in the context of the biodiversity crisis, particularly in agriculture and marine sectors, to balance between the affordability and quality of food. This review must take into consideration vulnerable sections of the population and ensure reasonable standards of living, and result in a plan to address these issues. 

17. The Irish business community needs to engage with biodiversity and show leadership in the same way that they have begun to engage with the issue of the climate crisis. 

18. In order to drastically reduce the use of pesticides by at least 50% by 2030 in line with EU policy, the State should incentivise and encourage the domestic and commercial use of natural, cost- friendly alternatives, sustainable practices and biodiversity-friendly solutions. It should also regulate the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, while maintaining food security. This should coincide with the improvement of schemes for the safe disposal of unused hazardous materials, as well as their containers. 

19. Examples of good practice in relation to biodiversity protection and enhancement should be actively identified and supported with funding, infrastructure and other supports provided to enable replication or expansion of these practices, in partnership with those who design and operate such initiatives and schemes, e.g. the Burren Programme, Biodiversity Regeneration In a Dairying Environment (BRIDE) programme. and the Sustainable Uplands Agri-environment Scheme (SUAS). 

20. The State is urged to take into account the recommendations from the Children and Young People’s Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, an initiative featuring our next generation, and continue to engage with children and young people on the environment. 

1.2 Strategic Approach to Biodiversity Loss 

Given that the response to the biodiversity crisis requires action across the whole of the State and whole of society, the Assembly believes there is a need for coordinated action and an over-arching strategic approach at a national level. 

21. There must be a whole of State approach to drafting and implementing a new statutory National Biodiversity Plan, aligned with the Climate Action Plan, supported by legislation and properly funded. This and subsequent plans must not be constrained by electoral cycles and should have clearly defined ecological targets (e.g. the number of species on the at-risk list to be halved), with appropriate monitoring and timelines, to which all parties at national, regional and local levels are fully committed. 

22. There should be a senior ministerial position, with an associated department, with responsibility for biodiversity. 

23. There should be a permanent, cross-party Standing Oireachtas Committee on Biodiversity Loss, which will consider and respond to the recommendations of this Assembly, within 6 to 12 months. 

24. There should be a new national independent agency to act as a centralised biodiversity coordinating structure to: i. Coordinate: a. Government departments in their biodiversity-related actions. b. Government policy and ensure the coherence of these policies. ii. Coordinate budgets related to biodiversity actions. iii. Drive consultation around biodiversity actions. iv. Oversee and coordinate enforcement organisations. v. Implement, monitor and report biodiversity actions transparently. vi. Oversee education and public engagement related to biodiversity. vii. Oversee and coordinate research and data collection. viii. Act as a point of contact for members of the public and industry to liaise with supports related to biodiversity conservation and restoration. ix. Act in alignment with the Climate Change Advisory Council. x. Set up an Emergency Task Force. 

25. The new National Biodiversity Plan and all policies related to biodiversity action at national and local level should be developed in partnership with the people and sectors most affected by changes (i.e. local communities, farmers, fishers, business, etc.). In many cases consultation has to move beyond the current status quo, with trust having to be rebuilt and relationships realigned. 

26. The new National Biodiversity Plan should have clear targets with ambitious and achievable timelines at national, regional and county level for halting biodiversity loss, restoring and enhancing biodiversity. 

27. In addition to recent developments in judicial structures in environment and planning, the State must develop an environmental court at Circuit and District Court levels, in order to hold policy makers, businesses and citizens to account. 

28. All citizens should be empowered with ‘legal standing’ to protect nature and biodiversity in court. 

29. Each local authority must have at least one full-time dedicated biodiversity officer, the total number of which should be determined by population density, land mass and coastline. 

30. All relevant departments, bodies and agencies that deal with biodiversity should have in-house ecological expertise to advise on all biodiversity related policies and activities. 

1.3 The Constitution 

The Assembly believes that ensuring the purposeful and necessary conservation and restoration of biodiversity will involve a range of measures, including making amendments to the Constitution. Such actions should be taken to attempt to ensure that nature is protected enough to continue to provide people with necessary ecosystem services, such as food, clean freshwater and air, and to allow people to access and enjoy a clean, safe and healthy environment, both now and into the future. 

31. There should be a referendum of the people to amend the Constitution with a view to protecting biodiversity. The proposal to amend the Constitution should include: a. Human substantive environmental rights, e.g. a right to a clean, healthy, safe environment; a right to a stable and healthy climate; rights of future generations to these or other environmental rights. b. Human procedural environmental rights, e.g. the Aarhus rights regarding access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making and justice in environmental matters. c. Substantive rights of nature, recognising nature as a holder of legal rights, comparable to companies or people e.g. to exist, flourish/perpetuate and be restored if degraded; not to be polluted/harmed/degraded. d. Procedural rights of nature, e.g. to be a party in administrative decision-making, litigation, etc. where rights are impacted/likely to be impacted. 

1.4 Resourcing the State’s Approach to the Biodiversity Crisis 

The Assembly believes that without adequate funding and resourcing, it will not be possible to curb the crisis of biodiversity loss or engage in the restoration of biodiversity. Such actions are necessary to continue Ireland’s food production, to ensure access to clean freshwater and air, and to ensure access to safe, healthy environments Members outline that funding should be made available firstly through greater efficiency and accountability for public funding, and reprioritisation between current spending and revenue raising.  When polled, three out of every four members indicated they were prepared to support and pay higher taxes, based on the principle of ability to pay, in order to make a reality of these recommendations. 

32. Sufficient funding and resources to meet the challenges of biodiversity loss must be allocated to all relevant bodies to sufficiently protect and enhance biodiversity, and implement and enforce related national and EU laws, directives and policies. This must be guaranteed in the short and longer term. 

33. The Government’s economic strategy needs to continue nurturing and embracing fully the ‘Beyond GDP’ concept and ensure that the National Well-being Framework, encompassing Environment, Climate and Biodiversity, is at the very core of economic decisions made now and in the future. 

34. The Well-being Framework for Ireland should be modified so that it more accurately measures economic, social and environmental progress in Ireland, with the metrics reported alongside GDP as an indication of how well Ireland is doing, and be given a strong role in shaping policy and informing the annual budgetary process. 

35. The State must undertake a comprehensive review of current and future taxation and levy policies, regulations and incentives to assess their impact on biodiversity. 

36. The State should significantly increase commitments and long-term funding with specific and targeted tax incentives and tax breaks to incentivise and support the regenerative economy, green technology and biodiversity activities. 

37. The Assembly supports the State making Ireland a global leader in sustainable finance models. 38. The State should introduce a lower “green rate” for loans that fund biodiversity initiatives. 

39. Planning levies should include a proportional contribution, ringfenced to conserve and enhance biodiversity. 40. In addition to a dedicated biodiversity budget, governmental departments and agencies should be permitted to roll over any unspent biodiversity funding into the next year. 

41. The State should establish a framework for corporations and large businesses, as major users of natural resources, to provide financial contributions to fund the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. 

42. Local authorities are uniquely placed to deliver biodiversity projects. Biodiversity funding and staff resources in local authorities must be significantly increased. Local authorities must be accountable and report on their biodiversity activities. Current resources must be enhanced, and biodiversity given greater priority in the councils’ activities. 

43. New sector-specific levies/charges on harmful imports must be introduced and ring-fenced for biodiversity. These should include: i. New sector-specific levies/charges on agricultural exports introduced and ring-fenced for biodiversity. ii. New sector-specific levies/charges on retailers introduced and ring-fenced for biodiversity. 

1.5 Accountability and Compliance in Biodiversity 

The Assembly believes that the laws currently in place regarding the protection of the environment are not being implemented or enforced, to the detriment of biodiversity and ecosystem services across Ireland. Penalties and sanctions for breaches in environmental law need to be increased and enforced. 

44. There should be an immediate review of existing frameworks and mechanisms for the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity policy and legislation. This review should identify those responsible, address gaps in responsibilities and policies, highlight areas with insufficient funding and result in a plan to address these issues. 

45. Sanctions for an offence should be proportionate to the offence so they adequately discourage negative behaviour (e.g. penalties should be linked to company turnover), with the offender incurring the cost of undoing the damage. Each governmental department, organisation and agency responsible for enforcement should be provided with training, a clear remit, have sufficient resourcing and should be held accountable. 

46. All penalties for any breach of pollution or environmental legislation/regulations should be increased to meaningful economic levels, reflecting all damage caused plus enforcement and restoration costs, with criminal sanction where necessary. 

1.6 Supporting Communities 

The Assembly believes local communities are key to protecting Ireland’s environment, heritage and culture, and are therefore critical to conserving and restoring biodiversity. 

47. The State must provide a streamlined and easily accessible system of small grants, information and support for the public to undertake biodiversity action on residential properties. 

48. The State must provide funding and infrastructural supports to local community and voluntary groups, including the settled and nomadic Traveller community, and other groups engaged in actions addressing biodiversity loss and restoration, e.g. managing invasive species, participating in citizen science, creating biodiverse spaces, and protecting and monitoring the health of the local environment, etc. 

49. The State must continue to promote and support the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan as a way of supporting communities and individuals to contribute to biodiversity initiatives. 

50. The State must align initiatives in Rural Regeneration and Development with local, community- based biodiversity activities. 

51. The State must ensure the expansion of community gardens and allotments through local authority initiatives in conjunction with private landowners, in both urban and rural communities. 

1.7 Non-Governmental Organisations 

The Assembly believes the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector plays a critically important role in biodiversity in Ireland by furthering research, engaging communities and acting as a watchdog in issues related to the environment. As lack of enforcement and implementation of legislation is a major issue in Ireland, the NGOs have often filled an important gap. However, compared to many other countries, public funding supports for NGOs in Ireland is poor. 

52. The value of NGOs engaged in biodiversity should be recognised in early consultations on all relevant plans, policies and projects. 

53. NGOs engaged in biodiversity should be appropriately funded in the short, medium and long-term to undertake targeted schemes with measurable outcomes and strict accountability measures. 

54. Core funding should be provided for collaborative work between NGOs and their partners. 

1.8 Public Engagement, Education and Awareness 

The Assembly believes that education and public engagement are key to empowering people to curb biodiversity loss across the country. With strengthened awareness, individuals, groups and communities across the country, in all environments from rural to urban, can be encouraged to engage in the conservation and restoration of biodiversity for one another and for the generations coming after us. 

55. The public must be encouraged to live in a way which reduces their impact on biodiversity loss. The State must develop public awareness and engagement campaigns on biodiversity and biodiversity loss, to educate people on the fundamental role of biodiversity in our lives and provide resources to inform people on what they can do in their own lives to support biodiversity. 

56. The State must develop an interactive website and app with easy-to-understand information on how the State and EU work together on environmental issues, where Ireland adheres to EU directives and the penalties of non-adherence. It should provide examples of good practice, information on what individual citizens can do, and details on who to contact for various issues. The website should highlight what collective action is occurring locally that people can participate in. 

57. The State must establish a public information campaign to promote the benefits of buying local and seasonal produce. 

58. Local authorities should play a central role in informing people of the importance of biodiversity in their areas. 

59. There should be mandatory and ongoing biodiversity training provided for any civil or public servant whose work impacts on wildlife and biodiversity. 

60. The Natura 2000 biodiversity sites provide opportunities for education for local communities. A programme should be established to promote awareness of the importance and vulnerabilities of these sites. 

61. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NWPS) should be funded to expand its education remit to make the public more aware of the importance and current conservation status of our protected habitats and species. 

62. Children and young people are integral to ensuring the environment is protected. In line with the current National Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development – ESD to 2030, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with the Department of Education, the Teaching Council, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, and the Teacher Education Support Service(s) should continue to engage in meaningful curriculum reform and teacher education to explicitly incorporate teaching and learning on biodiversity in early childhood, primary and post-primary curricula. 

63. In line with the current National Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development - ESD to 2030, the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and relevant agencies, such as the National Skills Council, Regional Skills Fora, Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, SOLAS etc., should work with further and higher education providers to develop a greater number of easily accessible further and higher education programmes, apprenticeship and community-based education related to biodiversity and environmental sciences. 

64. School grounds and local public amenities need to be developed as a support to a diverse and meaningful nature education. In line with this, basic biodiversity training for school staff, including maintenance and grounds staff, should be rolled out on a national basis. 

65. The Green Schools Initiative should be reformed to ensure nature and biodiversity feature in the initial stages of the programme. 1.9 Biodiversity Research and Data In order to monitor biodiversity and the impacts on biodiversity of various activities and policies, it is essential that biodiversity and related resources are regularly measured against high-quality baseline data. 

66. The State must develop a research strategy to support the national and EU Biodiversity, soil and water strategies, involving all agencies, higher-education institutes and other organisations. 

67. The State must create, publish and maintain an integrated habitat, species and land-usage map for the island of Ireland to identify habitat loss and improvement, to support local community awareness and to inform policies and actions of state bodies and organisations. 

68. The State must increase funding to bodies and agencies, including the National Biodiversity Data Centre, local authorities, and State agencies such as the Natural History Museum and Teagasc, to carry out research related to biodiversity. 

69. The State must fund a programme of work to promote and support citizen science (scientific research conducted with participation of the public) on biodiversity-related research. 

70. The National Biodiversity Data Centre must be established on a statutory basis, its funding secured, and its role enhanced, particularly with regard to data generation, education, community engagement and citizen science. 

71. Increased funding should be made available for the research of new and emerging best practices that offer alternatives to overexploitation of natural resources. 

1.10 Energy Production 

In terms of its energy production Ireland has the potential to tackle the climate crisis, while also addressing the biodiversity crisis. In this, Ireland should reinforce its ambitions to produce renewable energy. 

72. The State must prioritise the shift to all forms of renewable energy to achieve decarbonisation, while ensuring that these developments undertake full consideration of local biodiversity, do not negatively impact biodiversity and enhance biodiversity wherever possible. 

73. The State should ringfence a percentage of funds raised through all energy production for biodiversity conservation measures. 

1.11 Agriculture 

As the majority of land across Ireland is used for agriculture, the Assembly believes that the agriculture industry and its approach to land-use have a major impact on biodiversity. Biodiversity underpins our production system providing pollination, nutrient recycling, soil structure, pest control, regulation of water supply, etc. Biodiversity is currently undervalued in our agriculture production system and policy framework. Acknowledging farmers as the custodians of the land, with a rich knowledge and understanding of the environment, the agriculture industry can make the most impact on conserving and restoring biodiversity. 

74. Current State policy on the management of biodiversity on agricultural lands is not sufficient and requires fundamental review and change to support and incentivise farmers and landowners to protect and restore biodiversity. 

75. The Government must ensure that Ireland’s food production is in line with commitments to the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement, the EU Green Deal and current legal obligations to protect biodiversity, genetic resources (e.g. seed diversity) and water quality. It must phase out all environmentally harmful subsidies in the agricultural and food sector. 

76. Government departments, State and Semi State agencies shall ensure their work is done in a way which ensures collaborative planning, consultation in decision-making and implementation with farmers, local authorities and community groups. This must be underpinned by acknowledging that there is a need for local responses to local environments. Community led, peer-to-peer farming initiatives must maintain their community-led ethos once they are rolled out nationwide. (The Burren Programme and the BRIDE projects provide potential templates.) 

77. Biodiversity targets in national schemes (i.e. Common Agriculture Programme (CAP)/ Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES)) must be made significantly more ambitious, detailed and focused on the medium to long-term. Funding must be increased to support this ambition. 

78. Public incentives and payments for farmers must not restrict them in their ambition to make change for the benefit of biodiversity. All biodiversity incentives for farmers shall be results-based over the whole farm, with farmers who protect and enhance biodiversity rewarded and paid for the ecosystem services they contribute. 

79. Increased access to agri-environmental and payments-on-results schemes must be available to all farmers with commensurate funding. 

80. The State must support community leadership and peer-to-peer support in order to share knowledge and assist local farmers and communities to understand and replicate good biodiversity practice. 

81. The State must further subsidise and incentivise organic farming and locally grown produce. Sufficient resources must be deployed to support an ambitious implementation of Ireland’s Strategy for the Development of the Organic Sector for the period 2019 to 2025, to ensure a more supportive environment for the development of organic food and farming in Ireland and for subsequent policies relating to the medium to long-term development of the sector. 

82. Bord Bia must significantly increase the promotion of the organic farming sector in Ireland and actions supporting the Farm to Fork strategy.  

83. People must be encouraged to consume a more plant-based diet. 

84. Biodiversity awareness and education training programmes need to be instigated and improved across the agriculture sector, including for farmers, advisors, policy makers, food processors and retailers. 

85. The Green Cert must be adapted by increasing the proportion of credits for sustainable farming. Modules should include the identification and management of nature/biodiversity features on farmland, combining latest scientific information and traditional knowledge, recognising and preserving skills built by generations of farmers. 

86. The State must offer incentives through agri-environment schemes to farmers that achieve high soil quality status, either from the start of the monitoring programme or as a result of their employing remedial measures. 

87. In line with EU Soils Strategy, a National Centre for Soil Science must be established based on up-to-date technology where soil testing of physical, chemical and biological properties of soil is subsidised for farmers. 

88. The State must require sufficient information on commodities’ labels and menus to improve consumer understanding of the origin of their food and the impact of their choices on biodiversity/environment. 

89. More farms and farmers must be encouraged and rewarded for adopting the Silvopasture approach to farming – planting native deciduous trees in amongst pasture lands. 

90. The State must encourage use of multi-species mixtures and phase out use of monoculture grass seed mixtures. 

1.12 Freshwater 

Ireland has a rich network of rivers and streams (over 84,800 kms) and over 12,000 lakes which cover about 2% of its land area. They connect our uplands and coasts, and our urban and rural areas. Three decades of monitoring of water systems has shown the ongoing loss of water quality, which is severely impacting the biodiversity of our rivers and lakes and has a devastating effect on the quality of drinking water. The poor condition of our freshwater systems is an urgent problem that requires an immediate and coordinated national response. Suitable actions must be taken to reduce the impact of nutrients, particularly nitrates, on our freshwater systems. 

91. The management of our freshwater systems requires immediate action. It requires increased level of ambition, increased resources for Water Framework Directive implementation (and therefore aquatic biodiversity protection and mitigation), a focus on water quality and aquatic biodiversity outcomes, clarity on roles and responsibilities and accountability for achievement of the outcomes. 

92. The State must provide a single body to oversee and co-ordinate the many relevant bodies that manage, implement, and enforce legislation and policies relevant to freshwater. 

93. There must be urgent increases in investment by Irish Water to build new and improve existing water treatment plants to prevent the unacceptable discharge of raw or partially treated sewage into any fresh or marine waters. The current timelines and targets are inadequate. 

94. The management of water catchment areas must be greatly improved, with assessments of water quality to be updated regularly to guide action on restoring water quality. 

95. Riparian buffer zones, related to agriculture, forestry, industry and extractive processes and urban development must be expanded and take into account local conditions to prevent nutrient and sediment run-off. Schemes must be put in place to incentivise landowners to protect waterways, with incremental subsidies depending on the width and quality of buffer zones. 

96. Local and other relevant authorities must be held responsible for maintaining and improving the conditions of rivers in their areas, working with each other and with State agencies, such as Office of Public Works (OPW), Coillte, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Inland Fisheries Ireland, industry, farmers, private landowners, community groups, etc. Furthermore, local authorities and landowners must maintain the highest standards to riparian zones along the rivers in their areas. 

97. It is imperative that penalties for polluting freshwater are significantly increased and enforcement considerably improved. 

98. Farmers must have access to continuous training and up to date research in actions and land management practices that protect freshwater biodiversity. 

99. The State must increase support for community groups and NGOs that are working on key projects to improve freshwater systems – e.g. support for Irish Rivers Trusts, group water schemes, angling and community groups. 

100. The 1945 Arterial Drainage Act is no longer fit for purpose and must be reviewed and updated in order to take proper account of the biodiversity and the climate crisis. 101. Nature-based solutions must be included in State and community programmes to tackle flood management and should include whole of catchment area hydromorphology planning and restoration. 

102. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), supported by Inland Fisheries Ireland and an expert group, must conduct a complete analysis and survey of all catchment areas to develop a National Hydromorphology Plan.  

103. Motorway attenuation pools must be more widely used and incorporate the use of biodiverse wetlands. The forestry and extractive industries must have the highest standards of attenuation pools and sediment traps applied to their drainage activities. 

104. Soil sealing poses a growing threat to our waterways and hydromorphology through surface water run-off. New regulations must be developed to limit the permissible area of soil sealing around all new buildings and other developments that are subject to planning. All other surface finishes must be made of permeable surfaces. 

1.13 Marine and Coastal Environments 

Ireland has a vast marine environment, which is currently under-recognised and undervalued. The Irish State has committed to designating 30% of Irish waters as Marine Protected Areas by 2030. This is in line with our commitments under the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. However, the Assembly heard that Ireland has failed to achieve “Good Environmental Status” for over half of the descriptors (6 of 11) in the existing EU Marine strategy framework, including in biological diversity. 

105. The State shall designate and effectively manage an ambitious network of Marine Protection Areas, in line with EU targets of 30% of Ireland’s Maritime Area by 2030. 

106. The State shall create a National Marine Biodiversity Coordination Body to have responsibility for the implementation of Marine Protected Areas, the achievement of Good Environmental Status and wider marine conservation and restoration initiatives. 

107. The State must implement ambitious marine conservation measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure ‘Good Environmental Status’ for Ireland’s seas. 

108. A proportion of funds raised by the State through fines and levies for activity in the marine environment must be used for the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity. 

109. The State must act to ensure fish stocks in Irish waters are well managed through quotas, monitoring and no fish zones, supporting income transition for fishers who will need to change their way of earning as policies on Marine Protected Areas and offshore energy evolve, for the necessary conservation and restoration of biodiversity. 

110. As a matter of urgency, the State must increase actions and legislation to considerably reduce single use plastics and microplastics to minimise pollution within its waters and along its shores. 

111. The siting, development and construction of energy generation at sea (both pylon and floating) must be done in close collaboration with the fishing community and relevant marine biodiversity authorities. (See also recommendation 72). 

112. All enterprise involved in marine extraction or exploration must have a strict biodiversity net gain clause attached to their development permission and must be responsible for the ongoing and future management and enhancement of the biodiversity of their sites. 

1.14 Peatlands 

Ireland’s peatlands are an integral part of our national culture and heritage. They are also one of our richest resources of biodiversity and carbon sinks. Restoration of peatlands will have clear benefits for both climate and biodiversity, as well as health benefits for local communities and potential new revenues through eco-tourism. 

113. An updated National Peatland Action Plan must be developed with clear, measurable, realistic and timed goals and sufficient funding to protect and restore peatlands. 

114. The cessation of turf-cutting on protected areas must be fully implemented and enforced. To facilitate a true ‘just transition’, the State must provide adequate financial assistance to offer viable alternatives to people currently predominantly reliant on peat for heating their homes. 

115. The State must promote community engagement and wider awareness of the value of peatland restoration for nature and culture. 

116. The remits of Bord Na Móna and Coillte must each be reviewed to include a focus on peatland restoration and rehabilitation projects, with targeted outcomes on biodiversity conservation. The results of these outcomes must be freely available and published annually. 

117. All enterprise involved in the harnessing of renewable energy from or on all peatland must have a strict biodiversity net gain clause attached to their development permission and must be responsible for the ongoing and future management and enhancement of the biodiversity of their sites. 

118. The State must develop a cross-agency response team to review practices of prescribed burning and address issues around implementation of guidance and recommendations to stop illegal burning. 

119. The State must encourage and incentivise peatland owners to engage in the active protection of peatland biodiversity through appropriate management and restoration activities. 

1.15 Forestry, Woodlands and Hedgerows 

Ireland ranks lowest in Europe for tree cover. There has been a substantial increase in forest cover in the last century but much of this has been through monoculture plantation, which has issues related to water quality and biodiversity. Improved forestry management, together with native woodland enhancement and creation, have the potential to contribute solutions for nature, water and climate. The Assembly believes that Ireland’s woodlands and forestry require a change in management approach for the benefit of its people now and the generations to come. 

120. There is a conflict of interest between business aims and corporate responsibility, particularly for State agencies. The State must fundamentally reassess the constitution, goals and operations of Coillte and the 1988 Forestry Act (as amended). This reassessment must ensure biodiversity protection and positive eco-system services are core objectives for Coillte, alongside providing higher quality timber, meaningful employment and benefits to the community. 

121. State-owned woodlands should be recognised and managed as a strategic, long-term national asset for the benefit of the common good. 

122. Afforestation requires long-term goals and timelines. The State must legislate and provide funding for long-term investments in forestry, with strategic and ambitious emphasis on native woodlands. In addition, the State must ensure its afforestation strategy is not negatively impacting on biodiversity by establishing an effective monitoring system for the Forestry Programme. 

123. A new national strategy for the protection, maintenance, restoration and expansion of Ireland’s network of hedgerows must be developed urgently. Existing legislation and regulations regarding hedgerows must be reviewed, strengthened and fully enforced, with due regard to public safety. Sufficient results-based incentives must be made available to support all aspects of their proper management. In particular, the new CAP schemes should recognise and reward good hedgerow quality. 

124. Forests currently planted and those already felled on peatlands are a significant and historic problem. The State should remedy this issue promptly and on a significant scale. 

125. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine must implement incentives for State, Semi State and commercial bodies to establish more nurseries for the cultivation of indigenous hedgerow species and indigenous broadleaf tree species. 

126. A significant proportion of profit earned through Coillte’s commercial activities should be ringfenced and re-invested directly back into biodiverse forestry initiatives. 

127. The State must plan for appropriate felling management, including provision for continuous cover to encourage a more biodiverse and sustainable mixed forestry management model. 

128. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine must ensure that licensing requires site- by-site ecological assessments to ensure that biodiversity is not negatively impacted both within and outside protected sites. 

129. The use of pesticides in public and private forestry is to be reduced by at least 50%. 

130. Hedge management courses and certification should be reintroduced and it should be a requirement that all hedge cutting contractors and their employees complete such courses, and be licenced. 

1.16 Protected Sites and Species 

Ireland’s network of protected sites for habitats and species of national and international conservation concern are a key aspect of our efforts to restore and enhance biodiversity. The Assembly believes that the designation and management of protected sites and species has not been sufficiently overseen by the State. This has led to failures in managing and protecting biodiversity, conflict with stakeholders, including landowners, and a lack of awareness across society of the existence and status of our protected sites and species. 

131. The designated sites and species are among our most important cultural, heritage, and biodiversity resources and their management needs to be sufficiently resourced to meet our EU obligations. 

132. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and other relevant agencies must be provided with targeted funding to provide sufficient resources and staff to manage designated sites and protect species, produce and implement management plans, enforce protections for designated sites on land and sea. 

133. Protected sites do not exist in isolation. These ecosystems require connectivity with areas outside these sites, with links between protected sites. These connections and links need to be considered, protected and improved in local authority planning and other activities. 

134. The hunting open season order list must be reviewed regularly to ensure alignment with the endangered species list. 

1.17 Invasive Species 

Invasive species are a major threat to biodiversity nationally and internationally and have the potential to impact human wellbeing. 

135. The management of invasive species needs to be carried out on an all-Island basis. 136. Biosecurity must be increased at all points of entry to the country, in line with best international practice. 

137. The State must provide funding, education and infrastructural supports to engage local community groups in appropriately managing invasive species, which negatively impact native habitats and species. 

138. The State must produce a multi-agency National Invasive Species Plan to manage, monitor and collate information on the distribution of invasive species across the country. This should be used for coordinated control programmes and community awareness campaigns. 

139. The State must introduce effective population controls regarding invasive animal species, such as non-native deer and mink. 

140. The State must act immediately to put a timeline on the phasing out of, and eventual ban of, the sale of invasive species, e.g. Cherry Laurel. 

141. Regulations for the importation of recreational wildlife, classed as invasive species, must be reviewed. 

142. Schemes to incentivise people to buy native plants, shrubs and trees, including native fruiting trees and shrubs, to support garden biodiversity over non-native species should be devised and encouraged. 

1.18 Urban and Built Environment Urban environments have an enormous role to play in the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. This is particularly important considering the housing crisis Ireland is currently experiencing and in view of the value of green spaces to populations living in urban environments. Integration of nature and nature-based solutions within urban areas can improve human wellbeing in these areas. 

143. The State must reform and update the planning and building regulations and legislation to better consider biodiversity in all new developments, with specific evidence-based and locally relevant biodiversity and environmental measures (e.g. inclusion of nesting bricks, restriction of artificial grass, green planting, corridors, sand and water, etc.). 

144. Planning policy must be updated to require all new developments to have a significant net-gain for the environment and biodiversity. 

145. In line with international best practice, the State must increase mandatory requirements for a percentage of green spaces that support biodiversity in urban areas. 

146. Local authorities must raise the status of biodiversity to ensure that this is addressed and championed at the highest level in the organisation. 

147. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), as well as bodies prescribed in legislation with regard to biodiversity and planning, including An Taisce, should be properly funded and resourced to effectively carry out their planning and development roles. 

148. The State must utilise public spaces, such as bus shelters and roofs, to create green corridors, green walls/roofs etc., to support pollinators and promote biodiversity. 

149. Authorities must incorporate ecological expertise in decision-making regarding planning. 

150. All Environmental Impact Assessments and Reports, and Appropriate Assessments and Natura Impact Statements must automatically be lodged with the National Biodiversity Data Centre so the data and information can be stored and made publicly accessible, with sufficient funding provided for such action. 

151. Each Local Authority must include a Green Infrastructure Strategy in County/City Development Plans which includes corridors between urban and rural biodiverse habitats, creation of new biodiverse spaces, retrofitting of existing spaces and restoration of degraded biodiversity. 

152. The State must introduce tax incentives and grants for capital investment in retrofitting existing buildings with biodiverse initiatives (roof gardens, vertical gardens etc.). 

153. The State must review An Bord Pleanála and local authority legislation and practices to take full cognisance of the Aarhus Convention, create more transparency and grant citizens greater access to information and inclusion in decision-making related to environmental issues in planning. 

154. As part of the new National Biodiversity Plan relevant Government departments and agencies must publish central advice for local authorities on incorporating nature based solutions and ecological features into new developments, ecosystem restoration, green infrastructure and biodiversity, addressing pollution issues (chemical, light, etc.), reinforcement and/or offsetting that can be linked to achieving local and national biodiversity objectives that would be identified in development plans and local area plans. 

1.19 Industry, Business and Tourism 

The Assembly believes that the needs of Ireland’s economy must be balanced with the need to conserve and restore our natural resources and biodiversity. 

155. State and Semi State agencies and bodies responsible for all major state infrastructure should prioritise the protection and restoration of biodiversity in strategic planning, with measurable goals and timelines that are held to account by a newly established, independent, central agency (see recommendation 24). 

156. In addition to actions around the climate crisis, businesses should be required to take biodiversity into account through programmes which promote industry’s engagement with biodiversity. 

157. Ireland’s tourism industry is dependent on the protection and good status of the environment and important biodiversity sites are often high amenity sites. The promotion of eco-tourism and amenities should therefore be consistent with biodiversity conservation and visitors should be managed to ensure that biodiversity is not damaged. Opportunities to include biodiverse positive areas and projects should be encouraged as an additional tool within the overall promotion of Ireland’s tourism industry. 

158. A scheme should be developed, similar to the Farming for Nature initiative, in which businesses can demonstrate real and substantial biodiversity credentials. 

159. All large businesses and financial organisations must develop a mandatory assessment and disclosure process of harmful impacts to biodiversity, with a mandated role (similar to a Health and Safety or Well-being Officer). 

10 August 2023

NewTorts

'New Torts' by James Goudkamp comments 

One of the most enduring themes regarding tort law is that it is a dynamic institution that adapts in response to evolving social conditions and emerging forms of wrongdoing. Thus, centuries ago Pratt LCJ said that ‘torts are infinitely various, not limited or confined’. In the current age, Hoffmann J wrote that tort law ‘is not static’ and added ‘that new forms of tort may develop’. Torts scholars agree. For example, John Fleming observed that:‘tortious liability is constantly expanding and there is ample evidence that a plaintiff’s claim is not necessarily prejudiced because he is unable to find a specific label for the wrong of which he complains. New and innominate torts have been constantly emerging in the long course of our history and the courts have shown no inclination at any stage to disclaim their creative functions, if considerations of policy pointed to the need for recognising a new cause of action’. 

Although the courts have long been in the business of updating the list of civil wrongs, the process by which this occurs has received scant attention and certainly much less than it deserves. There is, of course, a large literature that considers whether particular torts should be welcomed into the fold. Thus, a substantial body of learning exists on whether spoilation of evidence and invasion of privacy should be recognised as torts. But this literature does not grapple with the process by which the courts create torts. Accordingly, this chapter’s purpose is to cast some light on that topic. Although legislatures can and often do create torts too, the recognition of new torts by the courts involves different issues, largely because of the restrictions to which the courts but not Parliament are subject. This chapter’s focus is on the creation of torts at common law. 

In terms of the structure of the chapter, it begins by examining how new torts can be identified (Section II). As we will see, it is often unclear whether one is dealing with a novel tort or an extension to an extant one. Attention is then turned to a range of instances where the courts have established new torts or declined to do so (Section III). Thereafter, regard is had to a sample of reasons that the courts have given both in favour of and against establishing new torts (Section IV). A wide range of reasons have been offered most of which are, as we will see, unconvincing. The final substantive part of the chapter offers some short observations regarding the other end of tort law’s lifecycle, namely, the process by which torts die (Section V).

08 August 2023

Powers

'Strengthening the Response to Elder Financial Abuse and the Proposed Enduring Power of Attorney Register: Suggested First Steps' by Kelly Purser, Bridget Lewis, Tina Cockburn and Sharon Christensen in (2023) 2 UNSW Law Journal Forum 1 comments 

National attention has increasingly focused on elder abuse. Recently, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlighted the physical and chemical abuse occurring in aged care. Earlier, in 2017, the Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) conducted an inquiry into elder abuse which explored national laws available to protect older persons from abuse. Elder financial abuse (‘EFA’), a common form of abuse, was a focus of the ALRC report. In this context, the ALRC made various recommendations about enduring documents (enduring powers of attorney (‘EPAs’) and enduring guardianship) given the role that these documents, especially EPAs, can play in facilitating EFA and heightening the vulnerability of adults who have lost capacity. These recommendations included the development of ‘a national online register of enduring documents, and court and tribunal appointments of guardians and financial administrators’ following the national harmonisation of EPA laws (financial, health and personal) as well as the development of a ‘national model enduring document’. However, despite the lack of national agreement, the 2019 National Plan to Respond to Elder Abuse agreed upon by the Council of Attorneys-General included achieving national consistency in EPA laws as a medium-term goal, whereas a national EPA register was noted as a short-to medium-term priority. That is, developing a national EPA register became the (unexpected) priority. 

In response to this development, this article argues that progressing a mandatory online register is premature, especially before an evidence-based approach to reforming enduring documents broadly has been adequately developed and considered. Further, before specific law reform proposals are developed, there are significant ‘foundational’ challenges that require examination, particularly in relation to an EPA register. This article will contribute to the dialogue around four of these fundamental considerations. First, the role of a human rights framework, as advocated by the ALRC requires discussion, especially given the different approaches to protecting human rights throughout Australia. Secondly, an examination of capacity and the assessment of incapacity is essential to any discussion about EPAs and decision-making. Thirdly, COVID-19 fast-tracked questions about whether and if so, what, role technology could and/or should play in the valid execution of various documents, including EPAs. Finally, the importance of gathering rigorous data, including data about lived experiences, to support evidence-based reform and evaluate any such reform is vital if the goal of ‘effectively reducing’ EFA is to be attained. To better contextualise these issues, however, some background comments will first be made about the law reform context, national harmonisation of EPA laws and the proposed register.

Integrity

'How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review' by Philip M Newton and Keioni Essex in (2023) Journal of Academic Ethics comments 

Academic misconduct is a threat to the validity and reliability of online examinations, and media reports suggest that misconduct spiked dramatically in higher education during the emergency shift to online exams caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reviewed survey research to determine how common it is for university students to admit cheating in online exams, and how and why they do it. We also assessed whether these self-reports of cheating increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with an evaluation of the quality of the research evidence which addressed these questions. 25 samples were identified from 19 Studies, including 4672 participants, going back to 2012. Online exam cheating was self-reported by a substantial minority (44.7%) of students in total. Pre-COVID this was 29.9%, but during COVID cheating jumped to 54.7%, although these samples were more heterogenous. Individual cheating was more common than group cheating, and the most common reason students reported for cheating was simply that there was an opportunity to do so. Remote proctoring appeared to reduce the occurrence of cheating, although data were limited. However there were a number of methodological features which reduce confidence in the accuracy of all these findings. Most samples were collected using designs which makes it likely that online exam cheating is under-reported, for example using convenience sampling, a modest sample size and insufficient information to calculate response rate. No studies considered whether samples were representative of their population. Future approaches to online exams should consider how the basic validity of examinations can be maintained, considering the substantial numbers of students who appear to be willing to admit engaging in misconduct. Future research on academic misconduct would benefit from using large representative samples, guaranteeing participants anonymity.

The authors state 

Distance learning came to the fore during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Distance learning, also referred to as e-learning, blended learning or mobile learning (Zarzycka et al., 2021) is defined as learning with the use of technology where there is a physical separation of students from the teachers during the active learning process, instruction and examination (Armstrong-Mensah et al., 2020). This physical separation was key to a sector-wide response to reducing the spread of coronavirus. 

COVID prompted a sudden, rapid and near-total adjustment to distance learning (Brown et al., 2022; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021). We all, staff and students, had to learn a lot, very quickly, about distance learning. Pandemic-induced ‘lockdown learning’ continued, in some form, for almost 2 years in many countries, prompting predictions that higher education would be permanently changed by the pandemic, with online/distance learning becoming much more common, even the norm (Barber et al., 2021; Dumulescu & Muţiu, 2021). One obvious potential change would be the widespread adoption of online assessment methods. Online exams offer students increased flexibility, for example the opportunity to sit an exam in their own homes. This may also reduce some of the anxiety experienced during attending in-person exams in an exam hall, and potentially reduce the administrative cost to universities. 

However, assessment poses many challenges for distance learning. Summative assessments, including exams, are the basis for making decisions about the grading and progress of individual students, while aggregated results can inform educational policy such as curriculum or funding decisions (Shute & Kim, 2014). Thus, it is essential that online summative assessments can be conducted in a way that allows for their basic reliability and validity to be maintained. During the pandemic, Universities shifted, very rapidly, in-person exams to an online format, with limited time to ensure that these methods were secure. There were subsequent media reports that academic misconduct was now ‘endemic’, with universities supposedly ‘turning a blind eye’ towards cheating (e.g. Henry, 2022; Knox, 2021). However, it is unclear whether this media anxiety is reflected in the real-world experience in universities. 

Dawson defines e-cheating as ‘cheating that uses or is enabled by technology’ (Dawson, 2020, p. 4). Cheating itself is then defined as the gaining of an unfair advantage (Case and King 2007, in Dawson, 2020, P4). Cheating poses an obvious threat to the validity of online examinations, a format which relies heavily on technology. Noorbebahani and colleagues recently reviewed the research literature on a specific form of e-cheating; online exam cheating in higher education. They found that students use a variety of methods to gain an unfair advantage, including accessing unauthorized materials such as notes and textbooks, using an additional device to go online, collaborating with others, and even outsourcing the exam to be taken by someone else. These findings map onto the work of Dawson, 2020, who found a similar taxonomy when considering ‘e-cheating’ more generally. These can be driven by a variety of motivations, including a fear of failure, peer pressure, a perception that others are cheating, and the ease with which they can do it (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022). However, it remains unclear how many students are actually engaged in these cheating behaviours. Understanding the scale of cheating is an important pragmatic consideration when determining how, or even if, it could/should be addressed. There is an extensive literature on the incidence of other types of misconduct, but cheating in online exams has received less attention than other forms of misconduct such as plagiarism (Garg & Goel, 2022). 

One seemingly obvious response to concerns about cheating in online exams is to use remote proctoring systems wherein students are monitored through webcams and use locked-down browsers. However, the efficacy of these systems is not yet clear, and their use has been controversial, with students feeling that they are ‘under surveillance’, anxious about being unfairly accused of cheating, or of technological problems (Marano et al., 2023). A recent court ruling in the USA found that the use of a remote proctoring system to scan a student’s private resident prior to taking an online exam was unconstitutional (Bowman, 2022), although, at the time of writing, this case is ongoing (Witley, 2023). There is already a long history of legal battles between the proctoring companies and their critics (Corbyn, 2022), and it is still unclear whether these systems actually reduce misconduct. Alternatives have been offered in the literature, including guidance for how to prepare online exams in a way that reduces the opportunity for misconduct (Whisenhunt et al., 2022), although it is unclear whether this guidance is effective either. 

There is a large body of research literature which examines the prevalence of different types of academic dishonesty and misconduct. Much of this research is in the form of survey-based self-report studies. There are some obvious problems with using self-report as a measure of misconduct; it is a ‘deviant’ or ‘undesirable’ behaviour, and so those invited to participate in survey-based research have a disincentive to respond truthfully, if at all, especially if there is no guarantee of anonymity. There is also some evidence that certain demographic characteristics associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in academic misconduct are also predictive of a decreased likelihood of responding voluntarily to surveys, meaning that misconduct is likely under-reported when a non-representative sampling method is used such as convenience sampling (Newton, 2018). 

Some of these issues with quantifying academic misconduct can be partially addressed by the use of rigorous research methodology, for example using representative samples with a high response rate, and clear, unambiguous survey items (Bennett et al., 2011; Halbesleben & Whitman, 2013). Guarantees of anonymity are also essential for respondents to feel confident about answering honestly, especially when the research is being undertaken by the very universities where participants are studying. A previous systematic review of academic misconduct found that self-report studies are often undertaken with small, convenience samples with low response rates (Newton, 2018). Similar findings were reported when reviewing the reliability of research into the prevalence of belief in the Learning Styles neuromyth, suggesting that this is a wider concern within survey-based education research (Newton & Salvi, 2020). 

However, self-report remains one of the most common ways that academic misconduct is estimated, perhaps in part because there are few other ways to meaningfully measure it. There is also a basic, intuitive objective validity to the method; asking students whether they have cheated is a simple and direct approach, when compared to other indirect approaches to quantifying misconduct, based on (for example) learner analytics, originality scores or grade discrepancies. There is some evidence that self-report correlates positively with actual behaviour (Gardner et al., 1988), and that data accuracy can be improved by using methods which incentivize truth-telling (Curtis et al., 2022).

Interference

The latest report from the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media comments 

The committee is gravely concerned that the information Australians receive on these platforms is being influenced by directions from foreign authoritarian governments. That's why we have recommended a range of enforceable transparency standards, so that users can both evaluate the content they see on these platforms, and the conduct of the platforms themselves. For example, we believe state-affiliated media entities should be proactively labelled on all platforms. We recommend that any content censored at the direction of a government be disclosed to users. Platforms should be open to independent external researchers who can identify, investigate and attribute coordinated inauthentic behaviour. The access to user data facilitated by these platforms, especially to employees based in authoritarian countries, must be disclosed. 

WeChat was found to have comprehensively failed the transparency test by refusing to participate in public hearings on the basis that, despite its significant digital presence, it does not have a physical presence in Australia. The committee therefore recommends that, as part of a suite of transparency requirements, social media companies that operate in Australia be required to establish a physical presence within Australia's legal jurisdiction so that they can be held accountable to our laws. 

The committee found that TikTok engaged in a determined effort to obfuscate and avoid answering the most basic questions about the platform, its parent company ByteDance and its relationship to the Chinese Communist Party. That's one reason why the committee has also recommended that social media companies that repeatedly fail to meet the minimum transparency requirements should be subject to fines and, as a last resort, may be banned by the Minister for Home Affairs with appropriate oversight mechanisms in place. 

Should the United States Government take action to force ByteDance to divest ownership of TikTok to another company that is not beholden to the Chinese Communist Party, the committee finds that Australia should consider similar requirements in Australia. 

The serious espionage and data security risks posed by TikTok, which necessitated the April 2023 ban on government users downloading the app to their devices, must also be confronted by government contractors and critical infrastructure providers. Government must also put in place measures to anticipate, assess and mitigate the next TikTok before it is widely deployed on government devices. 

Deterring this malign online behaviour must be a priority for government. Amended Magnitsky sanctions, bolstered enforcement of espionage and foreign interference offences and support for diaspora communities targeted by transnational repression all need to be part of a package of reforms to raise the costs of this activity. 

Of course, social media companies do not need to wait for the government to introduce legislation to strengthen transparency on their platforms. They can proactively undertake this important task on their accord, as some of them are already doing. 

Foreign interference through social media is a real, pervasive and growing threat. Despite Australia's world-leading efforts to counter foreign interference including through our Espionage and Foreign Interference statutory framework and the establishment of a Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, it is evident that there is more work to be done to make Australia an even harder target for the sophisticated disinformation campaigns of authoritarian regimes.

The Committee's Recommendations are 

 1 The committee recommends the Australian Government require all large social media platforms operating in Australia to meet a minimum set of transparency requirements, enforceable with fines. Any platform which repeatedly fails to meet the transparency requirements could, as a last resort, be banned by the Minister for Home Affairs via a disallowable instrument, which must be reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. 

Requirements should include, at minimum, that all large social media platforms:

  • must have an Australian presence; 

  • must proactively label state affiliated media; 

  • must be transparent about any content they censor or account takedowns on their platform; 

  • must disclose any government directions they receive about content on their platform, subject to national security considerations; 

  • must disclose cyber-enabled foreign interference activity, including transnational repression and surveillance originating from foreign authoritarian governments; 

  • must disclose any takedowns of coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB) networks, and report how and when the platform identified those CIB networks; 

  • must disclose any instances where a platform removes or takes adverse action against an elected official's account; 

  • must disclose any changes to their platform's data collection practices or security protection policies as soon as reasonably practicable; 

  • must make their platform open to independent cyber analysts and researchers to examine cyber-enabled foreign interference activities; 

  • must disclose which countries they have employees operating in who could access Australian data and keeps auditable logs of any instance of Australian data being transmitted, stored or accessed offshore; and 

  • must maintain a public library of advertisements on their platform. 

2  The committee recommends that, should the United States Government force ByteDance to divest its stake in TikTok, the Australian Government review this arrangement and consider the appropriateness of ensuring TikTok Australia is also separated from its ByteDance parent company. 

3  The committee recommends the Australian Government extend, via policy or appropriate legislation, directives issued under the Protective Security Policy Framework regarding the banning of specific applications (e.g. TikTok) on all government contractors' devices who have access to Australian government data 

The Minister for Home Affairs should review the application of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, to allow applications banned under the Protective Security Policy Framework to be banned on work-issued devices of entities designated of Systems of National Significance. 

4  The committee recommends the Australian Government consider extending the Protective Security Policy Framework directive banning TikTok on federal government devices to WeChat, given it poses similar data security and foreign interference risks. 

5  The committee recommends the Australian Government continues to audit the security risks posed by the use of all other social media platforms on government-issued devices within the Australian Public Service, and issue general guidance regarding device security, and if necessary, further directions under the Protective Security Policy Framework. 

6  The committee recommends the Australian Government establish a national security technology office within the Department of Home Affairs to map existing exposure to high-risk vendors such as TikTok, WeChat and any similar apps that might emerge in the future. It should recommend mitigations to address the risks of installing these applications, and where necessary, ban them from being installed on government devices. 

7  The committee recommends the Australian Government designate an entity with lead responsibility for whole-of-government efforts to counter cyber-enabled foreign interference, with appropriate interdepartmental support and collaboration, resources, authorities and a strong public outreach mandate. 

8  The committee recommends the Australian Government address countering cyber-enabled foreign interference as part of the 2023–2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy. 

9 The committee recommends the Australian Government clarify that Magnitsky-style cyber sanctions in the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 can be used to target cyber-enabled foreign interference actors, via legislative amendment if necessary, and ensure it has appropriate, trusted frameworks for public attribution. 

10 The committee recommends the Australian Government refer the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review, with particular reference to the Act's effectiveness in addressing cyber-enabled foreign interference. 

11 The committee recommends the Australian Government investigate options to identify, prevent and disrupt artificial intelligence (AI)-generated disinformation and foreign interference campaigns, in addition to the Government's Safe and Responsible AI in Australia consultation process. 

12 The committee recommends the Australian Government establish a program of vetting appropriate personnel in trusted social media platforms with relevant clearances to ensure there is a point of contact who can receive threat intelligence briefings. 

13 The committee recommends the Australian Government build capacity to counter social media interference campaigns by supporting independent research. 

14 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensure that law enforcement agencies, and other relevant bodies such as the eSafety Commissioner, work with social media platforms to increase public awareness of transnational repression. 

15 The committee recommends the Australian Government empower citizens and organisations to make informed, risk-based decisions about their own social media use by publishing plain-language education and guidance material and regular reports and risk advisories on commonly used social media platforms, ensuring this material is accessible for non-English speaking citizens. Specific focus should be on protecting communities and local groups which are common targets of foreign interference and provide pre-emptive information and resources. 

16 The committee recommends the Australian Government support independent and professional foreign-language journalism by supporting journalism training and similar programs, thereby expanding the sources of uncensored news for diaspora communities to learn about issues such as human rights abuses inside their country of origin. 

17 The committee recommends the Australian Government promote the digital literacy and the infrastructure of developing countries in the Indo-Pacific region that are the targets of malicious information operations by foreign authoritarian states.