Today, the Senate held a Committee Hearing on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This expedited inquiry was scheduled with just one day’s notice, as the Liberal and Labor parties want to rush this legislation through. The first witness, Ms. Lucy Thomas OAM, CEO of Project Rockit, delivered six minutes of the most relevant, heartfelt, and inspirational testimony on the issue of censoring social media for those under 16. Her insights demonstrated the benefit of lived experience.
Before taking a position on this bill, take the time to listen to her testimony.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Ms Thomas, there are harms and benefits at school, and there are harms and benefits in life generally. Claude Mellins, professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, stated: ‘For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests.’ She added: ‘Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience.’ They provide an important point of connection. She then said in relation to Covid: ‘On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.’ Isn’t the professor making an important point? It’s not about stopping real-world interactions it’s about balancing social media with real-world interactions. Isn’t it about a balance, not about prohibition? Isn’t it also the fact that parents and not governments are best placed to decide how their children develop?
Ms Thomas: Thank you for the question. I think you’re speaking to that idea of balance that a lot of us have been trying to refer to. We are acutely aware of the harms, and I think they’re beautifully captured in that quote, and acutely aware of the risk that we may create new harms by cutting young people off. I think this is a really important point, and I’d like to give you one example, a quote from a young person, Rhys from Tamworth, who commented: ‘Social media has helped me figure out and become comfortable with my sense of self, as there is a large community that is able to connect me with people all over the world. Living in a regional area, it’s difficult to find people dealing with the same personal developments, and social media really helped.’ This is beyond just direct mental health intervention; this is about finding other people like you. This is about finding spaces where we can affirm ourselves, use our voices and mobilise around actions that we care about, just like we’re doing here today. I’d love to point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has done some fantastic research into the experiences of specific groups—those who are First Nations, LGBTQIA+ Australians, and disabled and neurodivergent young people. All of these group face greater hate speech online. Actually belonging to one of those communities, I can say that we also face greater hate speech offline. What was really important is they also found that young people in these communities that already face marginalisation are more likely to seek emotional support—not just mental health support, but connection, news and information, including information about themselves and the world around them. So I take your point.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have another quote from Deborah Glasofer, Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Psychology at Stanford University:
Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative or in-person influences.
Is this bill throwing out the good with the bad, instead of trying to improve support in digital media skills to allow children and parents to handle these trials better?
Ms Thomas: I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think we really need to, in a much longer and more thorough timeframe, interrogate and weigh up all of these risks and unintended possible impacts. I’d like to draw another quote from Lamisa from Western Sydney University. You spoke about influencers; we tend to imagine those being solely negative. Lamisa says: ‘Social media has given me creators who are people of colour, and I think it has really allowed me to learn that I don’t have to justify my existence, that I am allowed to have an opinion and that I am allowed to have a voice about who I am.’ So I absolutely think that there is a risk that we’ll throw out these experiences; in our desire to protect people, we create unintended harms that they have to live with.
Senator ROBERTS: I just received a text message from someone in this building, a fairly intelligent person, and he said: ‘I was born with a rare disorder. I spent more than four decades feeling isolated until I discovered people with the same disorder on social media. This legislation would prevent people under 16 from linking with the communities online that can provide them with shared lived experience.’ What do you say?
Ms Thomas: I’m going to give you one more quote. I’m aware that young people aren’t in the room, so I’m sorry I’m citing these references. Hannah from Sydney says: ‘Where I struggled in the physical world thanks to a lack of physically accessible design and foresight by those responsible for building our society, I have thrived online.’ The digital world has created so much opportunity for young people to participate and fully realise their opportunities. We just need to be very careful.
I know in talking about all these benefits, I’m probably going to receive an immediate response about some of the harms. I’m not here to say that harms don’t exist. They do. If anyone is aware of them, it’s me. I’ve been working in this space for 20 years. I started Project Rockit because I wanted to tackle these issues as a young person fresh out of school. We know they’re there, but we have to be very careful not to impact these positive benefits young people face.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Thomas, isn’t there very important access to parents and grandparents on social media for their support and experiential interaction. A lot of children interact with their parents and grandparents through social media?
Ms Thomas: Am I allowed to answer this one?
CHAIR: Yes.
Ms Thomas: I think one of the big, grave concerns around implementation and enforcement is that it won’t just be young people who need to verify their ages online; it will be every Australian. The methods available, every Australian sharing their biometric data or presenting a government issued ID, are going to pose challenges for those Australians that you are talking about—older Australians who are already facing higher rates of digital exclusion and those from marginalised communities. Absolutely, this is a vital tool for grandparents and kids, for intergenerational play and learning, and we risk cutting young people off but also cutting older people off.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3_9xU_5vYGA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-27 14:56:002024-12-20 15:07:43Social Media Age Ban Faces Powerful Testimony in Senate Hearing
It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.
One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech. In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.
Transcript
To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government.
This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began:
1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings.
There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia.
1.2 The committee report—
as it was originally drafted—
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill.
That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful.
1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct.
The first report did not do that fundamental thing.
1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire.
That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously.
1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter.
Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder:
… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted.
Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued:
1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’.
1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance.
That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.
1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like.
That’s what you tried to do.
1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes.
‘Consultation’—that’d be nice.
1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted:
By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well.
People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it.
1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong—
not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth—
and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true.
Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly.
1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative.
1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’.
I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds.
Australia Post has rolled out a new point-of-sale system in post offices called Horizon. I have received many complaints from Australia Post licensees about system failures, including outages and missing funds. Payments that previously went directly into the licensees’ accounts are now being deposited into Australia Post’s account, forcing licensees to wait several days to access their money.
I questioned Group Chief Executive Paul Graham about the rollout. His responses were entirely at odds with the information I have received from numerous post office licensees. While Mr. Graham claimed there had only been one outage, I was informed of multiple outages, including one that occurred during the Estimates session when Mr Graham was present.
Both the licensees and Mr Graham have offered to hold meetings and conduct inspections to clarify the situation. I look forward to uncovering where the truth lies.
Transcript | Part 1
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Graham, and your colleagues for being here. I am advised by multiple Australia Post licensees that the new Australia Post point-of-sale system, Post+, is in most aspects of its operation not fit for purpose, yet licensees are required to operate using this system. My questions test that contention, which I’m sure you will disagree with. On Monday, 27 May, the system went down for several hours. Australia Post offices were unable to process transactions. According to the licensed post office network, this cost their outlets $200,000 in lost transactions and wasted staff time over several days due to the errors generated in the breakdown. Who pays that loss—you or the licensee?
Mr Graham: Australia Post pays that loss. We repaid that. This is a brand new point-of-sale system that has been rolled out to almost 4,000 post offices. It is a state-of-the-art system replacing what was a 30-year-old system that was well beyond its use-by date. It is fair to say that when you implement any brand new system to the scale that we have implemented it, there will be teething problems. However, I challenge and ascertain that the vast majority of post office licensees are very pleased with the system. I have been around our post offices a lot, particularly in recent months. It does what it says on the box. It has delivered and will continue to deliver even greater efficiency than the old system. That one outage was an unfortunate event. We were still able to transact, but not obviously online. Any cost to the licensee for that was fully compensated by Australia Post.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In the outage, some transactions that were in the process of completing when the system went down failed to complete. In some cases, money went missing. Your helpdesk instructed post office licensees to put in the amounts that went missing from their own pocket to ensure your system balanced with the promise that you would investigate and pay them back if it were sorted out. How much money went missing in the outage? How much money was put in by licensees?
Mr Graham: Well, those statements are not correct, Senator. We did not ask the post offices to put the money back in to balance it out. We provided a report for all those transactions that were not processed through. We did a reconciliation and audit trail working with the individual licensees. We balanced the books with them and had them put through those transactions when the system was up and running.
Senator ROBERTS: Judging by your reaction—we’ve heard this from licensees—you don’t think it’s fair for licensees to put their own money in to make your system balance when the fault was not with the licensees but with the system. So you would disagree that it is happening?
Mr Graham: Well, they didn’t put their money in. They weren’t asked to put in their money.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would disagree?
Mr Graham: Yes. We strongly disagree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the longest outage Post+ has experienced? I have received reports that Post+ can go down for days and that, while it is down, the post office can’t trade.
Mr Graham: No. That is completely false, Senator. I think we are talking minutes. We had that one outage, as you said, for a couple of hours in the very early days when it was launched. We are talking in minutes. I can’t remember when we last had a P1 on that system. As I say, it is built with state-of-the-art architecture. It sits in the cloud. It is fully backed up every day. The reconciliation process that happens at the end of the day, which used to be a very manual process for the licensees, is now fully automated. We’ve launched a new suite of reports that show them every transaction. It enables them to get detailed analysis of the trading during the day. This is a modern system. Those statements are totally incorrect. I strongly object to those statements. I would also say that it is a very small minority of licensees who have made the noise around this system and have done so, in my view, not because of the fact that the system is not performing—it is—but for other mischief.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue. Licensees report that the system does not provide an adequate reporting function, with the outcome that the licensees don’t have the data they need to run their daily business.
Mr Graham: Again, Senator, as I said, we have had a reporting system from day 1. We have recently launched the latest update of that. That report, and indeed the review of the system, is done in conjunction with licensees. We have a licensee steering committee that meets on a regular basis to look at enhancements and improvements to the system. We have a whole team of people who are working on these systems and improvements on a day-to-day basis. This is a very collaborative effort. I argue that if you were to go around and speak to licensees, you would get a very positive reaction to the system.
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe that is what I should do. Licensees are reporting Post+ runs slower than the system it replaced, meaning licensees are having to put on extra staff at their own expense. How is that an improvement? LPOs are small businesses. They can’t afford to bankroll your system development. That is the way they see it.
Mr Graham: Well, again, I would say that is a very small minority of licensees. Obviously when you are replacing a system that is 30 years old that people basically know how to operate in their sleep and you introduce a brand new system, it is like going from a rotary phone to a smartphone; it takes time for people to get used to the new navigation of that system. That is something that we highlighted to every post office before the implementation. The actual system itself, in terms of processing transactions, providing more meaningful insights and data, is significantly superior to the 30-year-old COBOL coded system that was in place.
Senator ROBERTS: You have a helpdesk which logs every disputed transaction from a post office. It must be a simple matter to get out data on those reports?
Mr Graham: It is, Senator. We have released, as I say, an updated and enhanced data report a couple of weeks ago that gives insights, visibility and transparency to every transaction that takes place in that system.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you please provide the number of transactions that have needed to be sorted by the helpdesk, the total value of those transactions, how many are currently in the process of being resolved and, finally, how many were resolved in a manner that required the post office to make good the transaction?
Mr Graham: I’m happy to do so, Senator. I know from looking into that issue that it is a very small amount. We will provide that detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next issue is a missing transaction. Licensees have suspected that money is going missing in the normal operation of the system. Some have started running transaction reports hourly. This is catching your system out by showing the licensee putting the money in for the customer and the money then just disappearing into the ether—gone. At this point, your help desk tells them to put the money in again out of their own pocket. Licensees are reporting thousands of dollars have to be made up per outlet. Are you aware of the problem of missing money?
Mr Graham: That is totally incorrect, Senator. I dispute those claims strongly. The system provides clear transparency on everything that is transacted. There is a complete electronic audit trail, which didn’t occur in the old system. We know every transaction that is reported. What we do find from time to time is that there are operator errors. For example, someone processes a cheque but they put it in as cash. We have to go into the system and talk to the licensee and reverse that transaction so that we can actually record the right dollars going into the right account. This is a modern, state-of-the-art point-of-sale system. As I say, it is replacing a 30-year-old system that was not cybersafe and that had lots of challenges and issues. I would say very strongly that the value that the system will create and is creating will be of significant benefit to the licensees going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Previously, sales of merchandise through the Australia Post Shop went into the licensee’s bank account on the day of the sale. Under Post+, the money goes into your bank account and is sent back to licensees in 48 hours. It is longer on weekends. How is adding that extra step and introducing payment delays to LPOs an improvement?
Mr Graham: Senator, I’m not aware of that issue, but I’m happy to take it on board. I wouldn’t see any reason why we would want to delay payment. We understand the importance of cash flow to the licensees. We have done a number of things to improve cash flow to the licensees. In terms of merchandise they buy, we give them credit for that merchandise straightaway even when it has not been delivered by us. We don’t take the money out until they physically do it. I am happy to take that query on notice. It doesn’t sound correct to me.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.
Mr Graham: Yes, certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a question of whether or not you’re abusing power over licensees by requiring the LPOs to cover the losses of a system you are requiring LPOs to adopt. What incentive is there for Australia Post to get this right if you don’t wear the losses from this going wrong?
Mr Graham: Well, first of all, Senator, again, I would restate that we do not expect the licensee to suffer any loss for what may or may not be a system failure. That is not an expectation of Australia Post. If the system is down and we have caused any financial harm to the licensee, we will refund whatever harm that is. We are very clear—indeed, it would be a breach of the franchise code if we were to do that—so that does not occur. If the licensees can show us that they have suffered a financial situation because of the system or an error in the system, we will happily make good on that loss.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure they’re watching.
Mr Graham: I’m sure they are. I am happy to talk to them.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the budget for Post+ implementation?
Mr Graham: The total budget for Post+ was about $270 million.
Senator ROBERTS: That is $270 million?
Mr Graham: Yes. It is a very large investment we made. Australia Post made that investment to improve the efficiency, improve the security and improve the features and benefits that were available to our customers as well. It has many benefits to our customers in terms of electronic receipts and SMSs et cetera. It does a number of other things that benefit the end customer.
Senator ROBERTS: Where did the money for Post+ come from?
Mr Graham: It came out of our normal capital investment cycle.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there software code commonality between the UK system known as Horizon and Post+?
Mr Graham: Absolutely not, Senator. The Horizon system was built 16 years ago. This is a brand-new state-of-the-system built in the cloud and built with global best practice around point-of-sale systems.
CHAIR: I will need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. Make this your last question.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to come back afterwards.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it your testimony, then, just to make sure I’m clear, that if a review of the software was done, there would be no code commonality between your system and Horizon? Mr Graham: I am not a technical expert, Senator. Given the Horizon system was built in a completely different software language 14 or 15 years ago, I would be very surprised if there were any coding similar to that and done by a completely different company.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Transcript | Part 2
Senator ROBERTS: I have a brief few questions. Do you, Mr Graham, or Australia Post have access to the software code for Post+ to review? Did Australia Post review the code before implementation?
Mr Graham: Yes. We have a comprehensive review process. We have also had that process externally validated. We have ownership of the source code of that software platform. It is a core, obviously, operating platform for our retail business. Therefore, it is really critical that it does what it says it does on the box and that we maintain and continue to invest in updating that software to reflect improvements we can make both in its operating system in relation to the enhancements that can be provided to customers when they transact with us over the counter and being able to make it more efficient for our team members and the licensed post offices that use it. I will give you an example. One of its features is an online training program. If you are in a transaction and you are stuck, you can go to the screen. It will show you and explain how that transaction could be managed. None of that was available in the old system. The old system was literally a rotary telephone equivalent to what is now a smartphone.
Senator ROBERTS: So you manage it yourself internally—your Australia Post people?
Mr Graham: No. We work with the software provider who worked with us to build the software. They work with us. We have our own team of software engineers. They have their team. We work with them to implement the enhancements, do the normal backups and all the other things you would do with a large-scale technology system.
Senator ROBERTS: So the company installing the point-of-sale system is Fujitsu. Is that correct?
Mr Graham: No. That’s not correct, Senator. They are installing the hardware—the screens and the keyboards. The company that is involved is a company called OVC, which is an American company.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the name of the company?
Mr Graham: It is OVC. They specialise in point-of-sale systems. They built the software in conjunction with Australia Post. The role that Fujitsu plays is a role that they’ve played with us through a contract. They have responsibility for servicing our screens, laptops, keyboards and all the normal—
Senator ROBERTS: Hardware only?
Mr Graham: Hardware only—correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Fujitsu is the company that provided the UK Horizon system. Correct?
Mr Graham: Fourteen or 15 years ago, that’s correct, Senator. Correct. They’ve had no role in the software provision of Post+.
Senator ROBERTS: They cannot go in and change the data in a system such as account balances, as they testified they could in the UK?
Mr Graham: Correct. It is a closed system. They have no access to the software. They have no role in the software. It’s completely closed. The only people who have access to that are our engineers. Again, we have a clear technology audit trail for when people access the system as well as OVC.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is the last question in this thread. I have a few more after that on another topic.
CHAIR: You are the only one left, Senator Roberts. You can keep going.
Senator ROBERTS: Money is going missing, according to the LPOs. Where is that money going? It has to be going into someone’s bank account.
Mr Graham: Senator, first of all, again, I would strongly challenge that claim. Money is not going missing. We have a full electronic audit trail of every single transaction that takes place. We provide that report both to the licensees and to our own internal team. Again, I would highlight that there is a very small noisy contingent of one licensee group that is not representative of the vast majority of licensees. I have been out there. I have met with them. I have been in town halls. I have been around the country, as has our retail team. The vast majority of people—again, I am happy to accompany you to visit our licensees—are very positive about the system, having replaced an old creaky system that was 30 years out of date.
Senator ROBERTS: So is this small disgruntled group scattered across the country, or are they in a locality?
Mr Graham: I couldn’t give you that. I know it is a very small group. As I said earlier, we believe they are pushing a broader agenda, not just around Post+. Therefore, they are creating noise when we believe there is no noise. We take very seriously to ensure that the system does what it says it does. We have spent $270 million. It had better do what it does. This is going to be around for a long time. We have made sure that we will do an upgrade of this system every year. That is unlike the old system, which was well out of date and had not been upgraded and was a cyber risk. This system, again, is built in the cloud with modern architecture and modern infrastructure. We are committing tens of millions of dollars to continually make sure it is upgraded and reflects the needs of both the users, which includes the corporate post offices as well as the licensees, and our customers.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how big this small group is that you’re talking about?
Mr Graham: No. We believe it is a small minority based on surveys we’ve done in relation to Post+, activity when we have been out talking to licensee associations and, indeed, the day-to-day backwards and forwards we have with all licensees.
Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in any one of the two licensee groups?
Mr Graham: They may be, Senator, in one group.
Senator ROBERTS: What are their main issues? What are they disgruntled about?
Mr Graham: Well, I think it has been a longstanding issue with Australia Post over a long time. As I have said, I cannot fix the problems of the past. They are in the past. My job is to fix today and tomorrow and to listen and to respond to any genuine concerns they have. We have done that. We are not perfect. Occasionally we do make mistakes. We open up and put our hand up about those mistakes. They have, I guess, motives around the role that Australia Post should play in banking, for example. We believe that our Bank@Post service is the right service for us. We don’t believe we should go beyond that. As I say, there are historic gripes that go back some time. We have worked very hard to ensure that we resolve any outstanding issues. I say again, and with strong conviction, that the vast majority of our licensees have a very positive attitude to Post+ and have a very positive attitude to the investments we are making. Both associations stood behind our licensee buyback program in metropolitan areas. They clearly recognised the significant overlap and the financial strain that a lot of these licensees in metropolitan areas were undergoing.
Senator ROBERTS: I will move to the next topic. Can I pay my Telstra mobile telephone bill at Australia Post?
Mr Graham: You can. You will pay a fee for that, which Telstra has imposed on you as a Telstra customer.
Senator ROBERTS: Who gets the fee?
Mr Graham: The fee gets split, I believe. I will take it on notice. I believe it gets split between the licensee, who gets money for the transaction, and Telstra.
Senator ROBERTS: Recently, Telstra updated their terms of service for some mobile phone customers. It no longer allows payments to be made at post offices. Have you just lost a customer?
Mr Graham: Well, this is not uncommon, Senator. As I said, our over-the-counter transactions outside Bank@Post have gone down 28 per cent over recent years. More and more companies are encouraging their customers to pay bills digitally or electronically or online. We have seen a significant decline in what we call our Billpay services for paying gas bills and telephone bills et cetera because customers are being encouraged to pay electronically or, indeed, are being penalised if they pay over the counter.
Senator ROBERTS: The banks like doing that to us anyway.
Mr Graham: Well, that’s an opinion one could express, Senator, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking for your opinion. Has a long-term solution been found for the cost of carrying cash, such as with Armaguard?
Mr Graham: It’s a very good question, Senator. I don’t believe a long-term solution has been found. Again, this is where Australia Post plays an important role. Whilst we’ve had the banks and, indeed, the RBA, confirm that cash use in the economy is declining, we cater to a demographic and a profile of society where cash is the main form of transacting. It is the elderly. It is people who don’t have English as a first language. It is areas where there is a high immigrant intake or a distrust of financial institutions. We are on the other side. We are seeing growth in that area of transactions. My observation is that these are customers who may not be that attractive to the bank because they don’t have mortgages or they don’t have business banking accounting. We are the service provider that is providing that service and will continue to provide that service. As I said in my opening statement, whilst we remain very happy to do that, we need to do that at a small margin so we can continue to invest in that service. That service is on track to make a loss for Australia Post.
Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t you say maybe 12 months ago when I saw you that Australia Post has the largest retail network in the country?
Mr Graham: We have, in terms of our footprint, over 4,181 branches, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I will come back to that in a minute. Do you have plans to change any post offices from manned to unmanned using kiosks?
Mr Graham: We have a whole range of different formats, including unmanned kiosks for self-service terminals. They are both our parcel lockers as well as where you can go to buy a stamp, envelope or satchel. That’s part of the broad range of services we provide. As I said, when we look at a suburb or a neighbourhood, we look at what services they are demanding. For example, a group in a Sydney area recently was looking for postal services. We had a town hall. We met with the community. It’s a community where a lot of parents both work. They wanted the convenience of picking up their parcels out of hours, so we installed three locker banks. That more than satisfied that local community along with some self-service terminals. In other cases—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. That is to enhance a manned post office rather than to replace a manned post office?
Mr Graham: It’s to enhance availability and convenience. In other places, such as growth corridors that we see in Western Melbourne or, indeed, Newcastle and west of Newcastle, we will work with community to put in a new post office or a new range of services. We continue to see customers demand convenience with their parcels. They want to be able to pick them up 24/7 and access them through the postal pap. It’s not a simple one-size-fits-all. We look to try to adapt a range of offerings to meet community needs.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question and the last topic. Some months ago, you were very positive about the possibility of an Australian postal bank. What are your thoughts now on the possibilities of that? Are you getting any support from the government?
Mr Graham: Senator, I’ve always made it clear that is a matter for government. We are very happy to continue providing our Bank@Post over-the-counter transactional services. We would be even happier if we make a small margin and our licensees could get more money for that. Anything beyond that is a matter for government.
During this session with the AFP, I inquired whether they had received a complaint about several individuals who had received tainted blood as a result of failures by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Red Cross to ensure the safety of blood donations used in medical treatments. The question was taken on notice.
Transcript
Thank you all for appearing tonight. I’ll get one question out of the way first. In October this year, several haemophiliacs and parents of haemophiliacs filed criminal complaints with the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw. The complainants have not received any acknowledgement of their submissions. Is the federal government aware of these complaints? When can the complainants expect a response?
Mr McCartney: I’m not across the matter. I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve supported these people and we’ll continue to support them. They’ve got a serious case. It’s an injustice that’s very strong and sustained. Their counterparts in Britain have been dealt with properly. These people over here are not being dealt with.
During my session with ASIO, I asked why they did not intervene when terrorist flags were flown, which is an offence, at demonstrations. Mr. Burgess explained that he was actually pleased when such incidents like this occurred because it made it easier to identify persons of interest and monitor them more closely in the future. He stated that it’s not ASIO’s role to enforce the law, as that responsibility falls to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
He clarified that ASIO functions as a security service. From a security perspective, Mr. Burgess noted that they would assess whether a visa applicant was a Hamas or Hezbollah sympathiser. He also confirmed that ASIO collaborates closely with the AFP and international partners.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the last five minutes. We’re finishing on 10.30.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and others, for attending. At recent pro-Palestinian rallies in Australia, the Hamas and Hezbollah flags and symbols have been highly visible and displayed by participants. This is an offence. Why did ASIO not step in with the AFP and arrest the offenders?
Mr Burgess: Firstly, and again, ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. We don’t arrest anyone. What I can say on this matter is that, as the head of a security service, I welcome when individuals fly the flag, so to speak, and indicate that they’re someone we should have an interest in. If people are silly enough to do that—whether it’s unlawful or not is a matter for law enforcement—I personally welcome people declaring their hand, which allows ASIO to conduct lines of inquiry and investigation into those individuals should they be a threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you sending two messages there? One is to encourage people to fly their flags even though it’s illegal. Or are you encouraging people to do that and be identified?
Mr Burgess: No; I’m just making the comment that if people are silly enough to do that, then it actually is something that we can use as a point of interest. Of course, if people are actually flying symbols which are unlawful, then they’re breaking the law. But I’ll leave that to our Federal Police colleagues to talk about when they’re up at estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think you had the power to arrest people, but what are your responsibilities? What avenues do you have?
Mr Burgess: We’re a security service. We get to investigate threats to security, including politically motivated violence, promotion of criminal violence, sabotage, foreign interference, espionage and anything that jeopardises the integrity of Australia’s border or attacks Australia’s defence systems.
Senator ROBERTS: The flying of a flag would be seen as flagging someone of suspicion to you, but it’s up to the police to prosecute.
Mr Burgess: It’s an indicator that there may be a violent ideology behind that. It might just be the actions of a misdirected individual who doesn’t really know what they’re doing.
Senator ROBERTS: By the way, I’ve read your opening statement, and I won’t be asking questions about the Gaza visas. Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah?
Mr Burgess: Let’s get into a conversation about what a sympathiser is. Are you asking whether there are people who actually support listed terrorist organisations?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Burgess: Yes. Are they all supporting listed terrorist organisations? No. The nature of that support is actually—when we get involved in a process of looking at someone, a visa holder, if it’s referred to us or intelligence indicates that we should look at someone, we’ll look at everything that’s before us and available to us through our international partnerships to make an assessment of whether someone in that case represents a direct or indirect threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: You look at individuals.
Mr Burgess: We’ll look at individuals when they’re referred to us or intelligence indicates that we need to look at someone, and we’ll investigate them with rigour.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah. I’m told you do the screening in terms of security.
Mr Burgess: We’re looking at security, yes. A very small number of them turn out to be an indirect or direct threat to security, based on our current work.
Senator ROBERTS: At mosques in Sydney and Melbourne, there have recently been speakers preaching hate and violence to their followers in relation to antisemitic themes. Why have ASIO and the AFP not intervened and arrested these pedlars of death and destruction? I know that you can’t arrest someone.
Mr Burgess: I obviously won’t talk about specific cases, but if we’re looking at individuals who are actually very cleverly staying on the right side of the law but could be interpreted by someone as actually still giving permission for violence, of course we would be interested, and our investigative efforts would be applied with rigour. How much effort they get depends on what we find as we make our inquiries and up through our levels of investigation, including the use of special powers if warranted.
Senator ROBERTS: What do those special powers involve?
Mr Burgess: A range of interception, computer access warrants, enter and search operations. We get highly intrusive under a warrant authorised by the Attorney-General, if we have the grounds that warrant that.
Senator ROBERTS: If it involves a breach of the law, will you report it to the police?
Mr Burgess: We pass that straight to our partners in the law enforcement joint counterterrorism teams.
Senator ROBERTS: You work together with the AFP and the state police forces, presumably.
Mr Burgess: In every state and territory, there is a thing called a joint counterterrorism team, which includes the state or territory police forces, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to Senator Rennick’s questions, what do you see as your responsibility once exposing a foreign agent?
Mr Burgess: If we’ve got a threat to security, someone’s engaged in foreign interference or espionage, we will deal with it through either an intelligence-led disruption or pass that matter over to our mates in the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, and the Australian Federal Police will take it from there, as was the case with the two Russian-born Australian citizens this year.
Senator ROBERTS: You and Senator Rennick may not have agreed on the words and not understood each other’s words, but do you need any laws passed to enable you to do your job better?
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) claims there are no side effects from COVID Vaccines. I’ve asked them multiple times to search their medical records database and report how many times the word “myocarditis” and other conditions have appeared over the years.
They tried telling me that conducting such a search wasn’t possible, however they seem to have forgotten that they advised they had done such a search, in a previous Question on Notice, proving it can be done.
The real issue is that they are unwilling to conduct a search for the subsequent years because they know the number of matches have increased over the years, which would force them to admit there is a problem.
Transcript
CHAIR: Welcome back. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. CASA has again refused to provide, in SQ24-001131, the number of times myocarditis and other conditions are mentioned in your medical records system. What are you hiding?
Ms Spence: Nothing. As we’ve explained before, the medical records don’t allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you’ve asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren’t airworthy.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t take the word of British courts and our own health authorities here?
Ms Spence: I’m simply explaining to you what’s in our system. We have no-one who’s reported having become unairworthy as a result of a COVID vaccination. Nothing has changed from when we provided evidence to you on this basis in numerous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We’ll come back to that. This is a simple matter. You simply search your database for the word myocarditis, and you give this committee the number of matches that are returned. Why do you refuse to do that?
Ms Spence: Because, Senator, as I think—again—we’ve explained previously, if we were to do that, it wouldn’t necessarily align with any examples of myocarditis. I can’t explain it anymore than I have previously, and that Andreas Marcelja has and Kate Manderson has. We’ve got nothing more to add, I’m sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Then you say it is an unreasonable diversion of resources. That’s freedom-ofinformation talk, and I don’t know if you realise this, but that excuse doesn’t fly in the Senate. You’re in parliament. How many hours did it take you to answer SQ23-003267, dated 13 February 2023?
Ms Spence: I’d have to take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many resources did it take you to answer that question?
Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA seems to change between two different excuses on this issue—the same issue. Most recently you’ve said it’s too hard and voluminous. Before, you just said it wouldn’t be useful without context. It seems like you can do the search; you just don’t want to. My question is: can you do this search for those words in your medical records system?
Ms Spence: Senator, the—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I can’t imagine that answer is no, because you’ve already done it. Thank you for confirming it. What specifically has changed since you answered SQ23-003267 in February 2023 that means it’s impossible for you to answer the same question in the same way in SQ24-001131?
Ms Spence: My recollection, Senator, was—the issue that we’ve got is that we could do a search and the word could come up. We’ve got no way, without significant resources, to actually determine how often that word is actually linked to someone who has experienced that condition. We’d have to review every time that the word came up to determine whether it’s actually linked to a specific example, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned. You mean that you’re telling me that CASA won’t get off its backside and examine something unless the answer’s easy?
Ms Spence: No, Senator, that’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a bit of work involved here. You’re responsible. You’re the sole person responsible for the safety of our commercial aviation system.
Ms Spence: And we put our resources where it makes the most difference.
Senator ROBERTS: I want the question answered. What specifically has changed—then we can come back to this hearing and talk about the context. Right now, I’m asking why the Senate shouldn’t refer you for contempt, for blatantly refusing to do something you can do—seemingly out of convenience or to try to hide the answer.
Ms Spence: Senator, I’ve got nothing further to add. I’m not trying to hide anything. I’m simply saying that to get the answer that you’re after would require us to go through what could be a voluminous number of examples of the word, with no way of being able to determine which one is actually related to a specific example of that, and that’s what we’ve said consistently throughout our appearances.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you just provide the answer to the question? The number of times—
Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. AstraZeneca was found to be dangerous and not effective in the British court system. You refuse to give me, after many attempts, the name of any agency or person—expert—as to who you’ve based your assessment that vaccines were safe.
Ms Spence: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. What is CASA doing to test—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to let Ms Spence answer that, in all fairness. I’m going to—
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t get to my question yet.
CHAIR: I think you said ‘you refused’ or something like that. You were going along ‘who was the expert that said’. And I remember sitting in this building when our Prime Minister was carried out on a sultan’s chair with every Premier because of AstraZeneca and all that sort of stuff. But I think you should at least allow Ms Spence just to answer that claim—
Senator ROBERTS: Fine, but I haven’t asked my question yet.
CHAIR: No, but you made a claim—an assertion. I do want to give her the chance, Senator Roberts. Thank you.
Ms Spence: Unfortunately, Senator, you could go through Hansard and find it as well. We have relied on the health experts—
Senator ROBERTS: Go through what?
Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator; if you want to follow up on issues around AstraZeneca, they should be referred to the health department, not the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what you’re doing to make sure that pilots who took AstraZeneca are not at risk.
Ms Spence: We have not seen any example of a pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Again it seems to me that CASA is waiting for the evidence to jump into its face.
Ms Spence: I have nothing else to add, I’m sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked?
Ms Spence: Before we came to Senate estimates, yes, I asked whether there had been any examples of a pilot coming up in our system as having been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination, and the answer has not changed from the last time we appeared before this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically, AstraZeneca?
Ms Spence: No, Senator, all COVID vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be worth checking, because we now know that AstraZeneca is dangerous?
Ms Spence: Senator, it wouldn’t matter what vaccination they had. The question is: has any pilot been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination? That would include AstraZeneca, as well as the other types of vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but do we need to remind you that some pilots are afraid to report their injuries?
Ms Spence: Senator, if you’ve got pilots who you know are incapacitated, or if pilots are approaching you who said they are incapacitated, as a result of a COVID vaccination, I can only encourage you to get them to report that. They can do it anonymously through the ATSB response, but I cannot act on what I have no knowledge of.
This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny. If only Senators had time to do this.
Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees.
I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that “supposedly” protect children from accessing porn. What utter nonsense! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing.
This bill claims to be about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Could you please explain the provisions around exemptions for sites that do not require a person to have an account, meaning they can simply arrive and watch? An example would be children watching cartoons on YouTube. What’s the definition here of a site that can be viewed without an account?
Mr Irwin: I guess it goes to the obligation around holding an account, or having an account, which relates to the creation or the holding of an account. So if there is any process—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility?
Mr Irwin: Sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility? Is the account the creator’s responsibility?
Mr Irwin: No, all responsibility is on the platform. If a platform under this definition has the facility to create an account and/or has under 16s who have an account on there already, then they will have to take reasonable steps.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the functional difference in your definition between YouTube and Porn Hub?
Mr Chisholm: One contains content that is restricted content that is prohibited to be accessed by children under law. Porn Hub is a pornographic website.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.
Mr Chisholm: YouTube has a whole range of information, including educational content and a range of information that doesn’t really match up with a site like Porn Hub.
Mr Irwin: That was the second limb of the age-assurance trial: looking at technologies for 18 or over, looking at pornographic material for age assurance. That also goes to the matter of the codes that DIGI were talking about before. Those codes relate to access to particular types of content including pornographic content.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me try and understand—
Mr Chisholm: The design of Pornhub is to provide pornographic material to people who are permitted to watch it. That’s the difference.
Senator ROBERTS: I guessed that, but I asked for the functional difference. Pornhub is 18-plus, but apparently you don’t have to prove it. Could you show me where in the legislation, in this child protection bill, you’re actually including porn sites?
Mr Chisholm: There are separate laws in relation to pornographic material, which we can step you through. This bill is more about age limits for digital platforms, imposing a 16-year age limit for digital platforms. There are other laws that prohibit access to pornographic material online including the codes process and classification system.
Mr Irwin: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s required for someone aged 16 or 17 to get access to Pornhub?
Mr Irwin: That’s subject to the codes that industry is developing right now, which DIGI talked about, in terms of what specifically is required. There is also a whole system of classification laws that are designed to prevent access to adult content by children. On top of that, there’s the eSafety Commissioner’s administration of things like basic online safety expectations and the phase 2 codes that are under development.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m glad you raised that because I was going to raise it. You exempt gaming sites because they already carry age recommendations. In fact, some video game sites are MA 15+; they’re not 16-plus. What will have to change? Will it be your bill or the MA 15+ rating?
Mr Chisholm: The bill doesn’t require them to change—
Ms Vandenbroek: Nothing will change.
Mr Chisholm: because gaming isn’t caught by the new definition. There’s nothing that requires gaming systems to change.
Senator ROBERTS: So social media is 16-plus, but video games are 15-plus.
Mr Chisholm: The policy here is to treat games as different to social media. For some of the reasons we talked about before, they are seen as a different form of content consumption and engagement to social media.
Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t this indicate to people that this bill’s intent is not about what the government says?
Mr Chisholm: No, the bill is definitely about what the government says. It imposes a firm age limit of 16 on account creation for social media for all of the concerns and reasons outlined about the damage that’s being done to under-16s through exposure to social media. Games are also subject to classification rules, so they have their own regime they have to comply with now.
Mr Irwin: They’re subject to the broader Online Safety Act as well.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wrap up.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. I understand that there are parental controls that parents can buy—they’re sometimes free—in the form of apps that watch over what children are watching. What alternatives are already available for parents to control children’s social media and control their exposure? Did you evaluate them, and why don’t you just hand the authority back to where it belongs—to parents—because they can do a better job of parenting their child than government can?
Mr Chisholm: The very strong feedback that we received from parents during this consultation is that they do not want to bear the burden or responsibility of making decisions that should be better reflected in the law. At the moment, parents often refer to the 13-year age limit that’s part of the US terms of service—
Mr Irwin: For privacy reasons.
Mr Chisholm: for privacy reasons, that apply in Australia. That’s often used for parents to say to their children, ‘You can’t have a social media account until you’re 13.’ It’s really important for parents to point to a standard law, an age limit, that will apply to everybody. It’s also feedback we’ve received from a lot of children. They would rather have a universal law that applies to all children under the age of 16 instead of a situation where some children have it and some children don’t, and where all of the harms that we’re aware of from exposure to social media continue to magnify. We also don’t want a situation where there is any question the parents have some legal responsibility in relation to an age limit. The very strong view of the government is that that responsibility should be borne by the platforms, not parents.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not going to have—
Mr Chisholm: The platforms are in a much better position to control their services than parents are.
Senator ROBERTS: So we want to put parenting in the hands of social media platforms?
Mr Chisholm: The parents have said to us that they have a very strong view that they want a 16-year age limit, and that the platforms are better placed to enforce that because it is their platforms.
Senator ROBERTS: How much notice did the parents get to give their comments? Because we got 24 hours notice of the closing of submissions.
Mr Irwin: We’ve been consulting, and I will add we do have evidence that 58 per cent of parents were not aware of social media parental monitoring, and only 36 per cent actually searched for online safety information.
Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be better to educate the parents?
Mr Chisholm: We are educating parents, too. That’s part of the digital literacy and other measures we are undertaking. Education is important, but it’s not enough.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant educating parents about the controls already available to keep the control over their children in parents’ hands, not usurping it and putting it in the government’s hands.
Mr Chisholm: I think it comes back to the point that we’ve made that the very strong view here is that platforms should bear the responsibility for imposing or following an age limit, not parents, who don’t have as much information about how these platforms operate as the platforms themselves.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/mJ4q_K6yMU0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-25 14:36:092024-12-19 08:54:43U16’s Censorship Bill Fails to Protect Kids from Harm
The Inquiry into the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – heard testimony from the Digital Industry Group (DIGI), the industry body for social media companies such as Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter). During the session, the witness was given a torrid time by some Senators who were not receiving the answers they wanted. I commend the witness for her patience.
My questions focus on the bill’s wording, which fails to clearly define core concepts. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for social media companies to implement the legislation. Instead, what it will do is grant massive power to the eSafety Commissioner. The bill is so broadly written that the eSafety Commissioner can just about do anything she wants. This is not how legislation should be drafted.
One Nation agrees with DIGI’s testimony and supports the bill being withdrawn and redrafted with proper checks and balances, clear definitions, and then subjected to proper debate.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’m trying to understand if YouTube will or will not be included in this bill. Section 63C defines age-restricted social media platforms as ones where the service allows users to interact, which YouTube does in the comments, or allows users to post material, which YouTube does, ora significant part of the purpose is to allow interaction, which YouTube does in some channels. Do you consider that YouTube is included in this bill?
Ms Bose: This underscores the broader challenge of this broad definition that encompasses a range of services and also the discretion it affords the minister in relation to making those determinations. I might hand to my colleague, Dr Duxbury, who may have more to add around some of the questions we have around that discretionary determination of what is in scope.
Dr Duxbury: Senator, you are absolutely right that the bill doesn’t make clear who is in or out of scope. To us, that is a really serious flaw in the bill. It is absolutely unclear who is in or out, and we don’t know what criteria willbe used to determine these exemptions. The explanatory memorandum suggests that some services will be out of scope, but that will not occur until a future date, and that date is unknown.
Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of the explanatory memorandum, page 21 says that children can visit sites that do not require an account. Is that your understanding?
Dr Duxbury: That is my understanding.
Senator ROBERTS: You said in point 3 of your submission that parliament is being asked to pass a bill without knowing how it will work. No regulator worldwide has done age assurance successfully yet—nowhere. We’ve got almost no time to discuss this in public, so I don’t know how you are even here. Thank you for being here. You say, though the government’s trial exploration of age assurance in the bill is not yet complete, only a year ago the government concluded that these technologies were ‘immature’. Could you expand on that, please.
Dr Duxbury: The conclusion was not only that the technologies were immature but also that there were risks about the reliability of the technology and their impact on digital inclusion. We heard earlier the fact that, because these requirements will apply to all Australians, the impact will be felt not only by young people but also by other Australians, who will be required to age-verify before they get access to a very broad range of services.
Senator ROBERTS: This is quoting from your tabled opening statement: ‘If we are proceeding on this fasttracked timetable, what is most important is that the bill contains structures for future consultation.’ You go on to say: ‘As drafted, the bill only requires that the minister seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner before making legislative rules. However, given these expert warnings of youth harm from a social media ban, the unknown technology and the privacy implications, further consultation with the community and technical experts is vital.DIGI suggests amending section 63C of the bill to include an additional requirement for a minimum 30 days of industry and public consultation before making legislative rules.’ Could you expand on that, please.
ACTING CHAIR:As quickly as you can.
Dr Duxbury: Sunita, did you want to take that?
Ms Bose: Jenny, I will hand over to you, but there is an additional reflection we had over the weekend that we didn’t have a chance to include in our submission issued on Friday evening that we might touch upon here in addition to what you’ve read there, Senator Roberts, around the need for reasons for a decision. Let me hand over to you, Jenny, to elaborate.
Dr Duxbury: We have recommended additional consultation because we think that, in the current context, it’s quite likely that the bill will proceed and proceed quickly. We understand that this committee will only have one day to basically ponder that question. If the bill is going to proceed on its current timetable then, frankly, adding in a consultation requirement seemed to be the only thing that was likely to improve it, given the complete absence of detail as to how it will be implemented. However, another possible improvement to the bill would be to require additional transparency regarding the making of these decisions. I believe the minister has the power both to include particular services within the scope of the bill and also to exclude them. To the extent that legislative instruments are going to be made to flesh out the detail of the bill, I think additional transparency could be very helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘A complete absence of detail’—thank you.
The government, with support of the Liberals, is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, justifying the measure by claiming it’s “popular.” Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties that accuse One Nation of populism are now pushing a measure not because it’s workable, but simply because it’s supposedly popular!
A true conservative party, Mr Dutton, would support parents to supervise their own children in their own homes. A true conservative, Mr Dutton, would not be promoting big government replacing parents.
The eGovernment is also trialling age-assurance technology, which uses facial scans of every social media user to confirm they are over 16. If there’s any doubt, the system will cross-check the person’s Digital ID for verification to ensure it matches. In addition to facial scans, the “Assurance AI” will monitor keystrokes, audio patterns and “other measures” to determine the user’s age.
By now you may conclude, as I did, that enforcing a social media age limit of 16 would require verifying everyone’s age using the device camera and their Digital ID—which everyone would be forced to have. So much for Digital ID being voluntary. Even adults will need one to continue using social media.
In the unlikely event they can actually make this work, children would move to other platforms that are less regulated, less safe and more prone to child exploitation.
Even more alarming is the fact that conversations would be monitored for signs of age, yet what happens to the voice prints and keystroke logs this system collects?
To make this work, cameras on devices would need to run constantly to ensure a new user hasn’t hopped on to an existing computer session. This means cameras would always be on, capturing everything – video and audio – that is happening in the room.
This creates a perfect scenario for hackers to access the feed.
One Nation opposes this legislation. The best people to monitor and regulate children’s internet use are parents—not a Big Brother government.
Transcript
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need to recognise that a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 expropriates parental power, and for the Senate to affirm that parental responsibility rests in the parents, not the Federal Government.
The government is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media and justifies the measure because it’s supposedly popular. Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties who accuse One Nation of populism are now promoting a measure not because it’s workable but, rather, because it’s supposedly popular.
A true conservative, though, would support parents supervising their own children in their own home. That’s not what Mr Peter Dutton is doing. A true conservative opposition leader would not be promoting big government replacing parents. Instead, he would be making device supervision easier for parents.
The government, repeatedly, is giving more power to social media giants under the guise, they say, of transparency. They’re not revealing anything. We still don’t see the algorithms of the social media giants—international players who have control over our space. What we’re doing is not making device supervision easier for parents. We’re not making it easier for parents to fulfil their responsibilities as parents.
It’s time that social media companies—plus Apple, Microsoft and Android—made their parental locks easier and more powerful. So let’s start there. No country in the world has made age limits work, because bureaucrats or social media platforms in far-off countries can’t see who’s using the computer or phone. The only people who can see what the child is doing with their device are the people in their home with them—the parents. It’s a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right to raise their children and to supervise their children. If this proposal from the government goes through, parents allowing their children to watch cartoons and educational shows on free-to-view social media, including YouTube, would be breaking the law. Parents supervising their children would be breaking the law. Watching the same material on Foxtel at $99 a month would be legal. Does that seem right? To me it doesn’t.
Essential and YouGov polling showed a majority of Australians support higher age restrictions on social media. This is the same Essential poll which found 17-year-olds should be able to buy alcohol and watch pornography and also recommended the age for criminal responsibility be raised to 14. Who did they ask? Are these next in the uniparty’s embrace of populism? My speech earlier today gave information on the unintended consequences of this idea. I will post the speeches together on my website. This problem is as old as the internet, and it’s not going anywhere. Let parents parent. That’s fundamental to raising children.
We’re seeing the opportunity in education now. States and the federal education department, which doesn’t have a single school, allow indoctrination programs through the national curriculum. Instead of being education, it’s now indoctrination. They’re grooming young children for the globalist agenda. They terrorise children: ‘The climate is changing. The globe is boiling. The world will end. You’ve only got five years to live unless we do something.’ These are the terrorists for young children today—the globalists who are pushing this agenda and this legislation around the world.
One Nation supports this matter being referred to a Senate inquiry, where technology experts can testify on the harms and unintended consequences of replacing parental supervision with government overreach and government control. We need to let parents parent. Instead of giving more power to the globalist corporations and to the internet behemoths, we need to put the power back with parents and let parents look after their children. As I said before, it is a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right. I am sick and tired, and so are so many parents and grandparents across this country, of the government trying to be a nanny state to protect their kids all while grooming their children for control, whether directly through education or indirectly through social media. What we need to do is actually look at what people need and then act accordingly. One Nation is not in favour of this. We are surprised that the Liberal Party, including their leader, seem to be lining up in support of censoring teens on the internet.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Vqw6jmOEzP0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-21 12:20:002024-11-21 13:24:32Social Media Ban or Big Brother Control?
Australia is in a housing crisis. Tent cities are appearing across the country, from parks and bridges to family cars, as rents soar and home ownership becomes unattainable. I’ve seen these conditions firsthand, and it’s heartbreaking. Since 2020, rents have increased by 40%, and the average house price has jumped to nearly 10 times the average income.
A major driver of this crisis is our turbocharged immigration program. While I value the contributions of migrants—being one myself—the current intake is unsustainable. In 2023 alone, over half a million net migrants arrived in Australia. This relentless surge is straining our housing market, health services, infrastructure, and economy.
The math is simple. With 2.45 million temporary visa holders in the country, about one million homes are occupied by these individuals. Yet, we’re building far fewer homes than we need, leaving more Australians homeless and without hope. This unprecedented immigration inflates demand, driving up costs in housing, infrastructure, and everyday essentials. High inflation, soaring interest rates, and gridlocked roads are the direct results of this unsustainable growth. Meanwhile, our health system is overwhelmed, and working families are left to fend for themselves.
The government’s solution? More immigration. It’s time to prioritise Australians—our families, our communities, and our future. Let’s address the housing crisis with meaningful reforms, not empty promises.
Transcript
Australia is in a housing crisis—a housing catastrophe. Tent cities are appearing across the country in the way many people have never seen before. I have been to them. It’s disgraceful. In almost every major city in Queensland I’ve been to, the tents are there. People are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in parks or in their family car. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It’s now $627 a week. That’s an increase of 40 per cent over just a few years. In 1987, the average house price was 2.8 times the average income. Today the house price is 9.7 times the income. That’s nearly 10 times. What hope have our children got?
A major driver of the housing crisis is Australia’s turbocharged immigration program. Listen to the facts that I’ll come up with soon, and remember that I’m not against migration. I was born in India; I’m half migrant. Australia has a very proud history of migrants building this country, but at the moment we have too many. Let me give you those figures. Australia’s net overseas migration used to average a bit over 80,000 a year. For the 2023 year, our net intake was an astonishing 547,000 new people. That’s more than half a million new people net. In the nine months to September 2024, 394,000 immigrants were added to the population. That puts us well on track for yet another year of more than half a million arrivals into the country. That’s net. That’s after the people who’ve left have been removed from the count.
Soon after setting Australia’s immigration record last year, Prime Minister Albanese promised he would cut immigration rates. Instead he increased immigration rates and is on track for a second new record in a row. Before 2020 and excluding tourists and short-stay crew, there were around 1.8 million temporary visa holders in the country. Today that number is 2.45 million temporary visa holders in the country, an increase of a third. Using Australia’s average household size of about 2½ people per dwelling, that means temporary visa holders are taking up one million homes. One million homes are unavailable because of this immigration program.
The Master Builders Association’s October housing review shows that, in the 12 months to 30 June this year, only 158,000 homes were completed. So much for your housing policy. That’s less than we needed to cover new arrivals let alone the homeless and those sharing who want their own place. Every year that this Labor government is in power is yet another year Australia’s housing crisis becomes worse. That is why it’s beyond a crisis; it’s a catastrophe. The ALP and the Greens can promise more houses all they like. Houses aren’t built out of rhetoric. When Australians are sleeping on the street we have to stop the flow of more people into the country.
Some of these temporary visa holders have to leave. Let’s start with the 400,000 overseas students who have completed or discontinued their study and have failed the 100-point test necessary for permanent residency. These students are in a limbo which is best solved by returning home and developing their own countries with the skills learnt here. Then there are hundreds of thousands of long-stay visa holders who have failed to learn English and failed to get a job but who nonetheless avail themselves of social security. I’ll say that again: they failed to learn English, failed to get a job and are on social security that the Australian taxpayers are paying for. If someone has been in this country for five years and has failed to earn their own way then their visa must be critically reviewed to determine if Australia is the right place for them. It’s time to put the temporary back into temporary visa holder. Our country is bleeding; stop twisting the knife.
The unprecedented level of immigration isn’t just leading to the housing crisis; 2.45 million extra people add to inflation. Inflation is caused when too much demand is chasing too few goods. It’s really simple, and 2.45 million new arrivals is a lot of new demand. It’s a hell of a lot. The government’s net zero energy policy has driven up power prices—we can all see that— and reduced the capacity of agriculture and manufacturing to meet this demand, leading to demand inflation. It’s a double whammy on inflation. The Reserve Bank has refused to lower interest rates because, as they have publicly stated, this unprecedented rate of immigration is creating so much excess demand, and they have said that reducing interest rates now would cause inflation to worsen. House prices are at highs. Now we’ve got interest rates high. This is a huge catastrophe.
Why is the government doing this? As Senator Hanson said, we’ve been in a per capita recession now for six quarters. We should be in a recession, according to the performance of our economy. The only reason we’re not in a recession is that they’re flooding the joint with migrants to bump up the gross domestic product. You see, a recession is defined as two quarters of negative gross domestic product. So the only thing saving the recession tag from being hung around Prime Minister Albanese’s neck and Treasurer Jim Chalmers’s neck is the record immigration coming in to take us over zero so we’re just barely hanging in there. They don’t want to be tagged, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who are in office, when the recession hits. Instead they will let hundreds of thousands of people go without what they need, facing inflation and tens of thousands of people without a home.
Immigration is also affecting our health response. Ambulance ramping is at an all-time high in most states, including in my state of Queensland. It takes time to train paramedics, expand emergency departments and buy new ambulances. The pace of the government’s increase in new arrivals has placed demand on our health system and it simply can’t keep up. Lives are at stake, people are dying, and Labor does not care. It doesn’t care about working families. It doesn’t care about mums and dads working then coming home at night to their family car in a park to see if their kids are still there. That is what this government is doing.
One of the largest budget costs is more infrastructure, especially on roads and transport. These projects are collectively costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The huge demand for infrastructure materials and qualified people is driving up the cost of infrastructure, adding to inflation. Many of these projects wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have an extra 2.45 million people in the country. The people coming to work from the Gold Coast to Brisbane, coming to work from the Sunshine Coast, even Caboolture, Burpengary, Morayfield, every day to work in the city of Brisbane are tied up in a car park or are in stationary traffic for hours—their lives just slipping away.
We have people sleeping under bridges. As I said a minute ago, we have a mother and father returning after work to see if the children are still in the car in the park in which they live, or a showground or maybe a tent under a bridge. Australia has the world’s richest reserves of minerals, bar none, and we have people sleeping in tents because the Labor government does not care.
It’s a vicious cycle where the government claims that we can fix the immigration problem with more immigration and that we can fix the housing catastrophe by adding bureaucrats and more immigration—fix housing, the catastrophe, with more immigration.
