Subjects: Labor’s appalling Misinformation Bill, Social Media age ban laws, Government’s delayed gambling advertising response
E&OE…
Greg Jennett: Now, yesterday we heard at some length from Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and an advocate from the group Reset Tech Australia. Against all odds in the Senate, Minister Rowland is pushing hard to salvage her novel Bill requiring the likes of Meta, TikTok and X to filter or hide harmful information that’s deemed verifiably false. There was more we covered with Michelle Rowland, who really does have a bit on her plate at present. Let’s check out where the Opposition’s thinking is at Shadow Communications Minister. David Coleman is with us now in the studio. David, welcome back. I’m sure you noticed Minister Rowland’s interview with us yesterday heavily focused on misinformation and disinformation. It was put to us by the Minister and by Reset Tech Australia. We’re at a moment in time when AI is going to propagate harmful falsehoods as never before. Foreign interference is tied up in this too. Why shouldn’t that be grounds to require big tech to control their messages?
David Coleman: Well, Greg, because this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever put forward by an Australian Government. I mean, you described it in your intro as ‘novel’ and that was a very diplomatic description. Everyone from Professor Anne Twomey to the Catholic Archbishops Conference to the Anglican Church, to Civil Liberties groups, to the Human Rights Commission, have absolutely slammed this Bill and including now pretty much everyone on the Senate crossbench as well. And the reason they’ve all arrived at that view is because this Bill is an attack on free speech. It will significantly limit free speech, and it just has no place in this country.
Greg Jennett: Not all of the people who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry thought it was unsalvageable, though, with amendment. I think the submission of many was that it could be improved even if you change the definitions. Maybe lost the disinformation definition and stuck with misinformation only. Why isn’t that worthy of massaging through parliamentary process?
David Coleman: Because the Bill is rotten to the core, Greg. I mean, the basic construct under the Bill is that the regulator can determine if digital platforms are doing enough basically on misinformation and if the regulator decides they’re not doing enough, massive fines. So what do you do if you’re one of those digital platforms? Well, you err on the side of making sure you do enough in the eyes of the regulator and what is that? Censoring the free speech of Australians. There’s no law like this in the United States, the United Kingdom, those countries that we would look to as our peers. And the reason there isn’t a law like this is because they have the wisdom to see, we don’t want the Government getting in the middle of political debate. And I think that’s a particularly important point. This version of the Bill explicitly says that elections and referendums are captured. And the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill explicitly talks about things like false or misleading information about electoral candidates. Imagine how wide that canvas is once you open it up and the notion that the regulator should be determining what we can and can’t say is plainly absurd.
Greg Jennett: Yeah although, there is a threshold there, isn’t it? It’s serious harm.
David Coleman: Well, that is true. But then it’s defined so broadly that all these different categories, it could be serious harm to public health, to the economy, to a referendum. And we don’t have to think theoretically on this, because you’ll recall that last year when the referendum debate on the Voice was happening. I’m not sure a day passed in this building where the term misinformation wasn’t thrown around in relation to the no case. Now, 61% of people said no, it wasn’t misinformation, it was actually a legitimate argument. And so, you don’t need a PhD in political science to realise this is an exceptionally bad idea. But frankly, if the Minister believes in it, she should be out talking to religious communities, talking to multicultural communities, talking to the Australian community about why they’re all wrong and the Government’s right. Because there’s very little support for this Bill.
Greg Jennett: Accepting that it may die in the Senate. There are other ways to tackle some of these problems. Digital duty of care has been foreshadowed and then in the Reps tabled up, I believe yesterday, there’s that Electoral Reform Bill which has a truth in advertising focus on it. And yet, at least on the latter, you’re going to oppose that too. Does that mean you don’t want any form of big tech filtration over political messaging?
David Coleman: Well look, I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when Government starts to say we’re going to determine what’s true or what’s false in the context of political debate. And there is a centuries-old tradition, not just in our country, but in other great democracies of debate being willing, of debate being full on at times, of people saying things that are bit untidy or a bit unfashionable. That’s democracy. That’s okay. But for bureaucrats to effectively have oversight of how that all plays out, you need to be very careful. In terms of the duty of care issue, we’ll take a look at that once legislation is available. It’s not available at present.
Greg Jennett: All right, thanks for clearing up. Let’s move on, David. Social media ban for under 16’s, as we understand it, we’re likely to see a Government Bill for that introduced tomorrow. You in principle support it. The Coalition does have the whip hand here. How will you work with the Government to pass it and when?
David Coleman: Yeah look, we’ll work very constructively with the Government and we want to see this Bill passed before Parliament rises for the end of the year. Peter Dutton stood up and said in June that we would do this within 100 days of being elected, if we were elected. An age of 16 for social media. No ifs, no buts. And that’s consistent with Peter Dutton’s whole career where he stood up to protect children, whether it was as a police officer or his work in home affairs and other portfolios. So we feel very strongly about this. We would have liked it to have happened six months ago, but we will work constructively with the Government and we await the legislation when it’s published tomorrow. But we want to get this done.
Greg Jennett: I guess they might be reassured by that. And look, finally, another topic covered in our conversation with Michelle Rowland yesterday, gambling advertising restrictions. I won’t recount all elements of our exchange, but when you watched it, did you draw the conclusion that the Government will be using legislation and will be using it this year?
David Coleman: I thought it was a very revealing interview, Greg, and the Minister was at pains to say as little as possible on the topic. And one thing she did say was that the Government hadn’t decided whether they would use legislation or not. You pointed out there’s six days of Parliament remaining, which suggests it’s rather difficult to pass legislation if you don’t even know if you’re going to have legislation.
Greg Jennett: What would be wrong, by the way, with using a code of practice, which as far as I can discern, is an option available to Government?
David Coleman: It would be, I think it would be difficult to cover all the issues that need to be covered through a code, but we’re kind of in the dark because nothing has happened for 18 months. I mean, for every piece of speculation on this topic, for every time the Minister has said that there’s wide consultation and something will happen soon, nothing’s happened. And as you pointed out yesterday, the Minister did say there would be a comprehensive response this year, and I noted that that statement was not repeated yesterday. And this is important because our kids are watching gambling advertising during sport and they are growing up to think that sport equals gambling and gambling equals sport. That’s wrong. And that’s why Peter Dutton said in his Budget Reply speech last year, that we would get rid of gambling advertising from one hour either side of live sport. We put legislation in the Senate to do that. In July last year.
Greg Jennett: You did.
David Coleman: And if the Government had supported it, that would be the law of the land today.
Greg Jennett: Who knows, you might have the opportunity to support theirs. ‘We are aiming to have it done’, the Minister said yesterday. So we’ll see if that opportunity arises in the days remaining this year. David Coleman, thanks so much.
David Coleman: Thanks, Greg.