The Federal Government has conceded it only consulted social media companies about new laws penalising them for failing to quickly remove "abhorrent" content, after the legislation had already been introduced to Parliament.

Key points: The Government passed laws which heavily fine social media companies which fail to remove "abhorrent" content quickly

The Government passed laws which heavily fine social media companies which fail to remove "abhorrent" content quickly Technology companies and the legal community have criticised the Government for a lack of consultation

Technology companies and the legal community have criticised the Government for a lack of consultation Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said the companies were only consulted after the laws had passed the Lower House

The legislation passed both houses this week, after being drafted in the wake of the terrorist attack in Christchurch.

The massacre was livestreamed on Facebook for 17 minutes, and online platforms have struggled to remove it entirely.

Under the legislation, social media companies risk fines of up to 10 per cent of the platform's annual turnover if they fail to remove violent content "expeditiously".

The law defines "abhorrent violent material" as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders or rapes.

However, the legal community and technology companies have criticised the Government for failing to adequately consult stakeholders.

In Senate Estimates on Thursday night, the Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said social media companies met the Government after the laws had been introduced to the Senate.

"The prime consultation occurred subsequent to the introduction of the legislation," he said.

"But as you might appreciate … this was really a joint task between the Attorney-General's portfolio and the Communications Portfolio.

"I can't speak to the full range of activities across both portfolios."

'We'd obviously be concerned if there was an impact': ABC

Appearing before Senate Estimates, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation said it would have liked to have been consulted about the laws.

The Law Council of Australia has raised concerns the legislation could inadvertently impact media companies who broadcast vision in the public interest.

The ABC's editorial director Alan Sunderland said it was difficult to know what the affect might be.

"We certainly understand and appreciate the intention of it, and we accept that the intention is not to prevent reputable media organisations undertaking reputable behaviour," he said.

"But given the fact we've had no advance information about it, and it's difficult to know precisely what the impact might be, we'd obviously be concerned if there was any impact, as has been mentioned, around whistleblowers and around organisations carrying out legitimate business."

However, Senator Fifield told the committee the laws do not apply to traditional media companies.

"The legislation is very narrowly crafted to apply to the publication of material which has been produced by, filmed by, the perpetrators themselves," he said.

"It does not apply to content which is filmed by media organisations, it does not apply to content filmed by third parties.

"The issue of whistleblowers is not relevant, because you are not a whistleblower if you are participating in and facilitating in and an accomplice to the live streaming of rape, murder, torture and kidnapping."