Stand now and be blessed again: the imperative for a statutory right to erasure in Australia

In 2006, I contributed an essay to Online Opinion entitled Stand Now and Be Blessed - a candid exploration of encounters with evangelical fervor, rendered in the introspective tone of a young man grappling with the performative aspects of faith. Those reflections, drawn from personal observations of communal rituals and persuasive doctrines, encapsulated the perspective of a younger self, marked by curiosity and subtle critique. Now, nearly two decades later, that publication persists in the digital realm, surfacing unexpectedly in professional evaluations and personal interactions, a vestige that no longer aligns with my evolved worldview. Over this interval, I have resided and worked abroad as an English language trainer in Europe (mostly near Stuttgart) and Asia, accumulating experiences that have profoundly reshaped my understanding of cultural nuance and individual agency. With 2026 marking the twentieth year of my absence from Australia, the enduring visibility of such early writings underscores a broader systemic failure: the absence of mechanisms to retire obsolete personal expressions from public view.

This predicament extends far beyond isolated instances, ensnaring countless individuals in a web of unintended permanence. Consider the professional whose archived correspondence undermines career advancement; the advocate whose nascent opinions, once progressive, now invite misinterpretation; or the young scholar whose candid forum entry eclipses academic merit. Such cases are not exceptional but emblematic, as evidenced by the eSafety Commissioner's 2023 findings, which indicate that approximately 45 per cent of Australians have endured reputational detriment from persistent online content, disproportionately affecting vulnerable demographics including women, Indigenous populations, and LGBTQ+ communities. The underlying dynamic is economic: digital platforms, sustained by exhaustive data retention, derive revenue from comprehensive user histories, rendering deletion antithetical to their models. To advocate for erasure is thus to confront entrenched commercial interests, a necessary reckoning for the restoration of personal sovereignty.

Such persistence constitutes not merely an administrative oversight but a substantive infringement upon human dignity. Existing Australian legislation, predicated on an era predating ubiquitous digital archiving, inadequately addresses this reality. Provisions under the Copyright Act permit revocation for unauthorised reproductions, yet prove ineffectual against self-published material. Defamation remedies necessitate demonstrable severe harm, overlooking subtler erosions of privacy and self-determination. The Australian Privacy Principles safeguard sensitive data but neglect the cumulative impact of routine disclosures. A comprehensive response demands legislative innovation: a statutory right to erasure, codified without qualification by degree of harm, obliging platforms to effect prompt deletions upon request. Enforcement should encompass substantial pecuniary penalties-potentially multimillions-personal accountability for corporate leaders, and algorithmic mandates for compliance, obviating reliance on nebulous "public interest" exemptions.

Importantly, international precedents illuminate a viable path forward. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has compelled the removal of over 1.2 million online entries in its initial implementation phase, affirming the feasibility of robust enforcement. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) similarly empowers individuals to excise their digital traces, fostering accountability among data custodians. Australia's forthcoming 2025 Privacy Act amendments introduce a tort for egregious invasions but falter in mandating erasure, offering procedural amelioration where structural reform is required. Parliament must prioritise enactment of this right, equipping the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner with enhanced investigative authority, including subpoenas and expedited injunctive relief, to ensure efficacy.

Critics, often aligned with technology sectors, decry such measures as threats to informational freedom, conflating personal rectification with wholesale suppression. This objection is untenable: the proposed right pertains exclusively to ephemeral, individual content-not archival records of public significance-thereby facilitating personal development without compromising collective memory. Denial of erasure perpetuates a stasis antithetical to growth, confining individuals to prior iterations of themselves and exacerbating inequities in an asymmetrical digital landscape.

Accordingly, I urge immediate parliamentary action: embed the right to erasure within the legal framework, safeguarding the autonomy essential to modern citizenship. Absent this, Australia risks entrenching a regime where past utterances dictate present prospects, a disservice to those who, like myself, have traversed continents and contexts over many years. The opportunity for equitable digital governance avails itself now; it must not be deferred.