In the May/June Estimates, I asked questions about former MP Craig Kelly being booted off Facebook (META) for posting alleged misinformation about COVID, which turned out to be accurate. Initially, Home Affairs denied involvement in censoring parliamentarians, however it transpired they were involved. These questions are following up to those asked in the previous Senate Estimates, where we have confirmation that Home Affairs censored a sitting Parliamentarian.
An international advertising agency was employed to identify posts that were contrary to the government’s narrative on COVID. Over $1,000,000 of taxpayers’ money was paid to M&C Saatchi to act as the thought police against the Australian people.
These referrals enabled social media companies to make what Home Affairs calls ‘their own determinations’ about flagged posts and accounts should they go against the platform’s own guidelines.
This is significant. Home Affairs claims it’s not in the business of censorship, but what else would you call such an arrangement? If the Labor government legislates its bill to combat misinformation and disinformation, we will see even more of this dystopian censorship.
Judging by the strained and carefully worded answers in this video, Home Affairs would like us to believe it had no influence on the censorship of Australians online during the COVID response. We’re not so naïve to believe their collaboration with social media companies such as META, which resulted in de-platforming an elected member of parliament, was anything other than authoritarian overreach.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. At the last Senate estimates, I was given many assurances by the witnesses from the Department of Home Affairs that no parliamentarians would have been
referred for censorship under your COVID-19 program. We now know that that was false. The Department of Home Affairs did refer the post of a sitting parliamentarian to the social media companies for censorship, and we’re meant to believe that the senior witnesses at this table knew nothing about it. Either the Senate was misled or the witnesses at this table do not actually know what’s going on in your department, as they refer parliamentarians for censorship. Is your department out of control?
Ms Foster: Our department is happy to respond to your question. Mr Smyth can take you through the detail.
Mr Smyth: I think, as referenced in previous hearings, the department is not in the business of censoring. We referred posts to social media platforms to take action at their discretion as to whether or not they felt that
particular posts breached their service standards. I know that, from the previous hearings in relation to whether or not there were posts that were from particular members of parliament, the secretary at the time said that he would be surprised. You are quite correct that there were referrals for a particular member of parliament that were made. They shouldn’t have been made, and the department has looked at its processes. But we do not now engage in any of the same activity. That activity ceased in late May of this year.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re enabling censorship and you were serving the social media giants—Meta, in particular—with the provision of their own services.
Mr Smyth: As I previously said—
Senator ROBERTS: Is that correct?
Ms Foster: No, that’s not correct, Senator.
Mr Smyth: we are not in the business of censoring.
Senator ROBERTS: But you enable censorship.
Ms Foster: No, we provide referrals to social media companies in order that they can decide whether or not the activity meets their own service standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re providing a service to Meta. Do you charge them an invoice?
Mr Smyth: No. The issues that were at play at the time related to public health and safety. We operated on advice and criteria that were provided to the department from the Department of Health. That was then assessed through a service provider that we had— M&C Saatchi. The department then reviewed the references from M&C Saatchi as to whether or not they were likely to have been in breach of the service standards of particular platforms. The platforms were then informed of that, and they made their own decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t Meta big enough to look after itself? Can’t it do its job? Are you helping them?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I want to draw you back to the question—as being relevant to outcome 1.
Senator ROBERTS: They referred it, it seems to me, Chair—
CHAIR: Yes, absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: with the intent of taking it down.
CHAIR: The relationship is obviously relevant. Direct questions about Meta might be better directed to them and is outside of outcome 1’s relevance.
Senator ROBERTS: You referred it with the intent of it being taken down, Mr Smyth.
Mr Smyth: No, we referred it with an intent as to whether or not the platform could determine whether it breached their own service standards.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you in the business of helping large global multinationals conduct their own affairs? Surely—
Mr Smyth: We’re in the business of looking after public health and safety, and it was in the middle of a global pandemic where a lot of people were dying.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you received legal advice on whether your department has breached the implied freedom of political expression with this program?
Mr Smyth: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not? This is pretty significant.
Mr Smyth: Because the posts that were referred to were a decision of the platforms themselves as to whether or not they would take any action.
Senator ROBERTS: The department has paid more than a million dollars to M&C Saatchi for their part in this COVID-19 censorship referral program. Did M&C Saatchi determine what was misinformation or did the department? Did M&C Saatchi or the department determine whether or not it complied with Meta’s guidelines?
Mr Smyth: The funds that were paid to M&C Saatchi from March 2020 to July of last year were $256,000 in relation to the COVID information. There was a previous contract that was already in place that was around $500,000-plus.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a question on notice—BE23-193—about M&C Saatchi payments. This is your response:
- Of these payments, World Services Australia (trading as M&C Saatchi) has been paid a total of $1,000,911 (GST inclusive) from 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023 for their work to produce analytical reporting on COVID-19 malign information in the Australian social media environment.
I jump in there to say that some of what is known as ‘malign’ is now vindicated.
This can be broken down into the following payments by financial year:
- 2020-21: $757,470 – that’s three-quarters of a million.
- 2021-22: $127,908
- 2022-23: $115,533
That’s a lot of money going to an international advertising firm.
Ms Foster: You’ve asked us to take that on notice. We will be happy to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: This was your reply.
When people said they thought the government was censoring posts around COVID, that wasn’t a conspiracy theory; it was actually true. You were helping Meta to censor posts that have now proven to be correct.
Ms Foster: I think the officer has provided this evidence a couple of times already. We were referring posts to social media companies for their own decision.
Senator ROBERTS: In accordance with their guidelines—helping them out? Right. Minister, the pending misinformation/disinformation bill legitimises suppression and censorship with no definition of truth. It relies on ministers’ rules. I want to read a quote from Mr Pezzullo—
Senator Watt: I don’t think I would agree with your characterisation.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no definition of ‘truth’ in your pending bill.
Senator Watt: The entire statement you made—I wouldn’t agree with your characterisation of this bill. I think it’s a bill designed to deal with an increasingly important issue in society, which is the use of social media platforms to spread misinformation and disinformation. That’s what I would say this bill is about.
Senator ROBERTS: But the government is exempt. The mouthpiece media, the mainstream media, is exempt. Social media is not and individual citizens are not. How can that be fair? I will read from Mr Pezzullo in the last estimates:
If we’ve inadvertently—and it would be inadvertent—made a referral of a sitting member or a senator, then I would find that regrettable because, in a sense, you’re held to account by your peers and by your electors; it’s not my job to hold you to account.
Since when has it become the government’s job to hold senators to account on what they say?
Senator Watt: Mr Smyth has already acknowledged—I can’t remember the exact words he used, but it was to the effect that it was regrettable that this had occurred on one occasion. The department looked into that issue after it was raised at the last estimates. Mr Pezzullo said that it would be regrettable if it had occurred, and Mr Smyth has already addressed that this morning.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me make it clear. I’m not talking about the department anymore. I’m talking about Labor’s pending misinformation/disinformation bill.
CHAIR: If that’s what you’re doing, that’s not relevant to outcome 1. I’ve given you—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m using—
CHAIR: No. Senator Roberts, I’ve given you two direction about asking relevant questions in this section. If you don’t have relevant questions then we do need to share the call.
Senator Watt: Chair, I make the point that not only are Senator Roberts’s questions not relevant to this outcome; they’re not relevant to this committee, because this bill that he is referring to is actually being led by the Minister for Communications. Perhaps Senator Roberts could take up those questions at that estimates hearing.
Senator ROBERTS: He will do.
Senator Watt: That is on now—today.
CHAIR: It is happening today and tomorrow, so you do have an opportunity to ask those questions to the appropriate officials.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Watt. Thank you, Chair.
Senator Watt: Here to help, you know what I mean!
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you are!
