The committee scrutinising the bill held just one public hearing and delayed the handing down of its final report two times. Coalition and Labor members of the committee supported the passage of the bill. But in a dissenting report the Australian Greens said it should not be passed. Fairfax Media reported in May that Labor was likely to announce that it would support the bill. In Thursday's report only four amendments were suggested to be made to the bill by Labor and Coalition members before it is passed. As of Thursday evening the government had not yet indicated whether it would support the amendments, although it is expected they will.

Remarkably, the committee did not clarify whether virtual private networks (VPNs), which have legitimate uses, would be immune from being blocked under the regime. Many groups, such as CHOICE and ACCAN, fear that the laws will cause collateral damage, resulting in legitimate services being blocked. But the committee didn't seem to take issue with this. "The committee ... notes that VPNs are unlikely to meet the 'primary purpose test'," the committee said without qualifying why it would not be likely. Despite this it said it would "be reassured if the government were to clarify the status of VPNs in the explanatory memorandum to the bill". But the committee did not list this in its suggested recommendations. Amendments recommended

The first amendment suggested by the committee to government waters down what a judge must take into account before ordering a website to be blocked. Instead of a judge being required to take into account a range of issues, such as whether it is in the public interest to block access to a site, the committee recommended that a judge "may" take this and the other issues into account. But in good news for critics of the site-blocking regime, the committee recommended that the government review the effectiveness of it two years after it has been in operation. The two other amendments relate to the bill's explanatory memorandum, a document used to interpret what the bill's intentions are. One addition recommended by the committee was that a judge might consider ordering that ISPs put up a landing page informing users why a website was blocked when they attempt to access it.

The other addition to the explanatory memorandum recommended that greater clarity and guidance be given on the issue of ISP costs and liability subsequent to an ISP's compliance with court orders to block sites. At present ISPs are required to foot the bill of the site-blocking regime, which the government estimates will cost the entire telco sector $130,000 per year to run. Following Thursday's report being tabled, the group representing ISPs, the Communications Alliance, called on the government to clarify the cost implications of the blocking regime Communications Alliance chief executive officer John Stanton said the government should carry through on its earlier commitments concerning costs. "The government's policy proposal, in July 2014, stated categorically that 'Rights holders would be required to meet any reasonable costs associated with an ISP giving effect to an order [to block a website]...'," Mr Stanton said.

"But this core commitment by government – which is important to minimise the costs on internet consumers - went missing when it drafted the legislation. "The committee has rightly pointed out that the government has left cost issues opaque in the legislation and told the government to clarify that service providers should not have to bear the cost of implementing orders to assist copyright holders." The Communications Alliance did, however, welcome the recommendation that the effectiveness of the bill should be reviewed after two years of operation. Mr Stanton also welcomed the committee's enthusiasm for the creation of a landing page at the blocked online location specifying why a site has been blocked. Meanwhile Internet Australia, a group representing Australian internet users, said the site-blocking legislation was an "unjustified" law to pursue at the present time.

It called on the government to delay the bill for at least a year in order to measure the effect of the recent launch of video streaming services such as Presto, Netflix and Stan*. The about-to-be-established "three strikes" warning system, where alleged pirates would be warned about pirating three times before their details are handed over via a court process to rights holders, was another reason for delaying the bill, Internet Australia CEO Laurie Patton said. "We support intellectual property rights but we just don't think that [the site-blocking laws are] ... appropriate or necessary until these other avenues have been tried and tested." Like the Communications Alliance, Internet Australia also supported the need for a requirement to post a landing page on a blocked site. Likewise, Internet Australia agreed that the government should conduct a formal review of the effectiveness of the bill.

* Stan is a joint venture between the Nine Network and Fairfax Media, publisher of this article