Posts

U16’s Censorship Bill Flawed and Overreaching

,

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One Nation agrees with DIGI’s testimony and supports the bill being withdrawn and redrafted with proper checks and balances, clear definitions, and then subjected to proper debate.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. 

/0 Comments/by

Social Media Ban or Big Brother Control?

,

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. 

/13 Comments/by

Public Hearing: Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024

,

Free TV Australia

Reset Tech Australia

Institute of Public Affairs

Digital Rights Watch

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance

Program: 11 October 2024

111024 ProgramDownload

Submissions

.Free TVDownload
Reset Tech AustraliaDownload
44.1. Institute of Public Affairs attachmentDownload
35. Digital Rights WatchDownload
78. Media Entertainment & Arts AllianceDownload
/by

Break Down of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill

I break down the contents of the government’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation (MAD) Bill and see it for exactly what it is – a censorship regime that would make George Orwell blush.

/12 Comments/by

Is ACMA Biased Towards the Left?

,

During recent Senate Estimates I checked with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as to why it did not publicise complaints about the ABC, yet pushed out press releases for similar breaches by the Sky Network.

I also inquired into the Optus outage last year to see whether there is any new information around the failure of emergency 000 calls and whether Starlink (high speed satellite internet) was being considered as a backup in the future.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. On 26 April 2023, you issued a press release about the Sky News program Outsiders for breaches of industry codes. On 20 March 2023, in relation to the ABC, in response to Senator Henderson, you agreed that the ABC breached the codes during their coverage of a community meeting in Alice Springs. You endorsed the ABC Ombudsman’s finding that there were breaches of the code yet published no press release about that, from what we can see. Why does a conservative news service cop a full press release when you conclude they’ve breached the code but when the ABC breaches a code there’s barely a peep from you publicly? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I might need to refer to my colleagues for the details of that circumstance. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. 

Ms O’Loughlin: I would have to say that we put out media releases for pretty much every breach that we look at under the Broadcasting Services Act, be it a national or a commercial broadcaster. I can take it on notice. There are certainly circumstances in the last year where we have put out media releases on the ABC. So it is not our practice to discriminate between types of broadcasters. We like to make transparent our decisions about breaches across the board. I might just see whether or not my colleagues have anything to add. 

Ms Chapman: In the instance of the ABC Alice Springs issue, we didn’t undertake a full formal investigation. We fully considered the matter. We looked at the content. We considered the report by the ombudsman at the time. We didn’t find a formal breach in that instance. That was on the basis that the ABC themselves had found a breach. The ABC themselves conceded that there were issues with the broadcast and that there was considerablemedia attention at the time which highlighted the findings that the ABC made. So we didn’t put out a press release because we didn’t make a formal finding. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Ms O’Loughlin: I will add to that. I just found something in my notes. For example, from the investigation we did on the ABC’s Four Corners program called The Big Lie, we did a media release for that on 21 December 2022 because we had found breach findings in that program. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept your answer from before. I refer to your letter, Ms O’Loughlin, to Senator Henderson on 20 March that is file reference BM11801. You mentioned in the second last paragraph the matter conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter, including any changes to its editorial processes. Did the ABC advise of any changes to its editorial processes? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t have the letter in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll read it. 

Ms Chapman: We did seek a response from the ABC, but I think we need to take on notice whether we received a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: I will read the second last paragraph. However, the ACMA has requested that the ABC keep it informed about the outcome of any further internal investigation conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter (including any changes to its editorial processes) and any additional steps that may be taken by the ABC as a result. 

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, we will take that on notice for you. I don’t have that in my pack. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What does it do to the trust of a media company when it has obvious bias? 

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, I don’t think that’s something on which I can express an opinion. I do think in our experiences broadcasters take very seriously their obligations under the various regulatory codes that they are subjected to, which do come to, in most cases, provisions around bias, impartiality and factual accuracy. 

Senator ROBERTS: It would erode trust if it is done often? 

Ms O’Loughlin: That would probably be a matter for the broadcasters to comment on, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will ask some questions here briefly. If they’ve been covered, just tell me so. I’ve checked with Senator Cadell. He hasn’t covered this one. Could you briefly explain the obligation for carriers to allow network switching for Triple Zero calls and why this didn’t happen during the Optus outage? The second part you’ve already discussed at length, so I’m not interested in that. Could you please explain the obligation? 

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly, Senator. The obligation is usually referred to as the mobile camp-on provisions. That is a globally standardised arrangement. Where emergency call services can’t be delivered by a particular carrier for a particular reason, those networks allow those calls to camp on to their network for them to be delivered to the emergency call service. That’s what— 

Senator ROBERTS: Free automatic switching? 

Ms O’Loughlin: So it’s an automatic transfer of those particular calls going to emergency call services to camp on to another network. If I have that incorrect, my colleague will let me know. 

Senator ROBERTS: She’s got it. Thank you. Are there any fines applicable for carriers failing to allow switching or failing to make switching work for Triple Zero calls? Would Optus be facing that? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I think part of what we’ll be looking at in our investigation is what was the reason, if in fact that was the reason, some emergency calls didn’t get through. As I mentioned earlier, it’s still not very clear. We’re still in information gathering mode about why that didn’t work. I will ask Mr Fenton to go over some of the potential regulatory responses we may have, if we do, in fact, find any breaches. But it is early days. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Mr Fenton: I will clarify again that these are enforcement options available to the ACMA if it does find breaches of the determination in question—the emergency call determination. The ACMA can issue a formal warning. It can issue a remedial direction to take action to comply. It can accept a court enforceable undertaking. There are infringement penalties available currently set at $18,780 per contravention. It is open to the ACMA to apply to the Federal Court for penalties as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is an interesting quirk. Does per contravention mean each phone call?  

Mr Fenton: It would depend on the construct of the particular obligation in question. But it can apply to a specific contravention. Once again, it comes back to the actual structure. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand. Thank you. Finally, it strikes me that there is the Starlink service, which covers almost everywhere in Australia. It can access the sky, and that’s pretty much everywhere. Would it be a good back-up for text messages and limited voice conversations and emergency calls to fit into that network? 

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s a really interesting question. I think there’s a lot of interest in Starlink and, indeed, other satellite services, such as low earth orbit satellite services, that may be able to provide direct to handset text or, indeed, calls which are now starting to emerge. There is the potential for that to really benefit particularly people in regional or remote areas or areas of Australia that have trouble getting signals. I think the department is commencing to look at that in more depth to see what that potential is. There has been quite a lot of strong interest internationally as well, as you can imagine, from particularly countries who have the same sort of issues we have in trying to get signals into various areas. The United States recently, from my reading, had come to the conclusion that technology was just not quite mature enough at the moment to be a backstop for emergency calls but could be in the future. I think the department is going to be looking at whether that is a potential in the future. We think that’s a really exciting development in the satellite space. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate the direct answers. 

/2 Comments/by

Home Affairs Collaborated with Social Media During COVID

,

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!

/by

Return of Cheng Lei is NOT a Labor Government Achievement

The return of Cheng Lei is good news and I can only imagine how relieved her family must be. My intention here was not to discuss Cheng Lei’s release but to highlight the misinformation from Labor around this story, and how this relates to the ACMA Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill the government is aiming to implement.

Penny Wong, as Foreign Affairs Minister, last week took credit for the release of Australian journalist, Cheng Lei. That may be misinformation. According to a Chinese government post, Cheng Lei was released after serving her sentence in China for publishing information under an embargo. In other words, she completed her sentence and was sent home.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it himself: Cheng’s return was not part of a deal struck with Beijing and her release followed the completion of China’s judicial process. It couldn’t be more clear.

Yet the Labor government is passing off Cheng Lei’s release as a Labor government achievement with Penny Wong taking credit herself. The PM even advised his caucus in the aftermath of his failed $450 million Voice referendum to “focus on achievements” and placed the release of Cheng Lei at the top of the list.

Why did I feel this was important to point out in the senate and on the record? It’s an example of misinformation from a government that is about to censor everyone except itself and the accredited media. To a bureaucracy with a censorship hammer, every bit of unapproved information looks like a nail.

I think most of us agree after the past few years that if we are to combat misinformation and disinformation then the government and its media mouthpiece would be the best place to start.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. It’s based on a constituent’s inquiry. Australian journalist Cheng Lei was convicted in China of illegally providing state secrets to overseas parties and imprisoned. Cheng Lei was recently released and arrived back in Australia last week. Minister, can you inform the Senate what role you had personally, your department had and the Prime Minister had in the release of Cheng Lei? 

Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank the senator for his question. Obviously, as you would expect, this is an issue on which there has been a lot of discussion at various levels with the Chinese authorities, urging the return of Ms Cheng and urging her to be able to return to Australia. I can indicate to you—and obviously some of this is at officer level—that, as I said publicly at the time, this was my first engagement with the then foreign minister Wang Yi, when I first met him at the first bilateral discussion in Bali. It is the practice of Australian governments to ensure that we raise consular cases with other countries, China included, at all appropriate meetings. 

I can indicate to the senator that Ms Cheng Lei was the subject of representations from me, the Prime Minister and officers, just as with other consular cases such as Dr Yang’s and with those obviously facing criminal charges. We made those representations at the Prime Minister level, at the foreign minister level and at officer level, and we will continue to do so. I would acknowledge also that this has been the practice under successive governments. I spoke to former senator Payne after I had met Ms Cheng Lei at the airport to let her know before the news became public. I acknowledge that she also raised this with the Chinese authorities— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese ministry of state has posted on Weibo that Cheng Lei had been sentenced to two years and 11 months in prison and had been deported after completing her sentence. Minister, your words on Cheng Lei’s arrival at the airport, as quoted in the Guardian, made it clear that the government was taking credit for her release. They quoted you as saying: I made them a promise some time ago we would do everything, I would do everything I could, to bring her home …Minister, who is telling the truth—you or the Chinese government?

Senator WONG: Senator, you and I have differences of opinion, but I regret that you would use something I said about what I said to her children in that way.

An opposition senator: Seriously?

Senator WONG: No—not ‘seriously’. It was an expression of hope, emotion and a degree of humanity, because, like all Australians, I wanted to see a mother return to her children. That was also what I said publicly. The Chinese legal system has been completed. We have seen what they have said—that is, the articulation of the Chinese legal position. What I can say is that we made a priority to make representations— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this a case that proves the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill should not exclude ‘government misinformation and disinformation’ and
instead should include ‘government misinformation and disinformation’?

The President: Senator Roberts, I’m not sure how it relates, but I’m sure the minister will respond as she sees fit.

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, there is no misinformation on our side. There is no disinformation on our side. What we have said—and if you had actually tracked every engagement I have had with the Chinese authorities, what I have said afterwards when I have articulated, at least in summary version, what I said to the Chinese authorities and what the Prime Minister said to his counterparts—you would know that we have made these representations. All I can say is this: this is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is an issue about an Australian who is now home with her children. Behind her were many Australians across this country and across the political divide who made the same representations to Chinese authorities at all levels that Australians wanted to see a mother united with her children. I think that is a good thing. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity— (Time expired)

Transcript 

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to the reporting of the release of Chinese Australian citizen Cheng Lei. 

The Chinese government announced that Cheng Lei’s release was simply a matter of her completing a sentence of two years and 11 months. In her explanation though the minister claimed an emotional high ground that is not supported by events at the airport. Minister Wong was most welcome to make remarks to Cheng Lei’s children in private, and she did so. The minister then restated and expanded her remarks to the press, which were widely reported. Further, at that press conference the minister stated that the release of Cheng Lei was a result of Senator Wong’s perseverance, which the minister did not restate in her answer to me. Did her representations have any effect on the Chinese government? Not according to the Chinese government. Who is right? We may never know. 

One Nation is concerned about the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill as applied to this situation. As drafted, the government and mainstream media are exempt from the bill. The Guardian‘s slobbering all over Minister Wong and the Albanese government over Cheng Lei would be exempt from this bill. The government can say whatever it likes and the mouthpiece media can repeat and even embellish those claims and that would be legal. Bloggers and social media companies who question the narrative though would be guilty of misinformation and fined or shut down. Weibo, which announced the Chinese government’s side of the story, has an office in Sydney and would be regulated under that bill. There’s no provision in the bill for truth as a defence. There’s no definition of what is misinformation. If this bill is passed, democracy itself will be at risk from an unending one-sided glorification of the ruling party. Last weekend, Australians rejected this sort of propaganda in the referendum campaign. The government proceeds with a misinformation and disinformation bill at its peril, because the people will see through it, just like they saw through the lies in the ‘yes’ case. This is about censorship. 

/8 Comments/by

The COVID Censorship Chain of Command

,

During the May/June Senate Estimates hearings, I asked the Department of Health and Aged Care to clarify their role with the Department of Home Affairs in censoring social media posts.

Home Affairs had indicated that it relied upon the Department of Health to identify social media posts that ‘contravened Facebook/Meta’s guidelines’. This of course is just more dodging of responsibility as the agency trampling the fundamental rights of speech. Although it’s government doing the censoring, they give the social media corporations the button to push.

It turns out that when Home Affairs wanted to censor or provide information to social media platforms where posts breached the platform’s own guidelines during the COVID response, they relied upon the Department of Health to identify whether or not there was a breach. The Department of Health rarely identified posts and merely provided the information that the government decreed to be ‘correct’.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Yes. Professor Murphy, could you please clarify your department’s relationship with the Department of Home Affairs, because Home Affairs seem to think that they relied upon the Department of Health for identifying social media posts that contravened Meta’s guidelines.

Prof. Murphy: Ms Balmanno can go over that again.

Ms Balmanno: As evidence became available in terms of the nature of the virus and the nature of treatments, vaccines and all of those sorts of things and how it was being transmitted, obviously there was a growing evidence base there, and it was our job to collate that and to point to the source information, whether that be the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, whether that be the World Health Organization or whatever it might be. We would collate that information for the Department of Home Affairs. That would be what they were able to the then assess posts against. But ultimately the assessment is against the social media platform’s own policies about what is appropriate and not appropriate to be put onto their platforms. They each have a published policy, so they would use our evidence base to inform that decision and assess against those policies. Where they felt there was a breach and a post or an account was putting forward information that was not consistent with those policies, they would refer that to the social media company to look at.

Senator Roberts: Let me clarify, then, to make sure I’ve got the understanding. Home Affairs wanted to censor or provide information to social media platforms where a post breached a social media platform’s own guidelines, and they relied upon you to identify whether there was a breach.

Ms Balmanno: We were part of informing that, in that—

Senator Roberts: Who else was part?

Ms Balmanno: My point is the elements that we were able to contribute to were whether if, for example, they were making a referral specifically because they thought the information was false and was disinformation being deliberately promulgated to cause harm, they would use the evidence sources that we had collated for them to make that assessment and say, ‘According to all of this published research or according to the views of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and the position in Australia, here is the evidence we are pointing to to suggest that this post is incorrect.’ So we would help provide that evidence. That was our role.

Senator Roberts: So you didn’t identify posts; you just provided evidence when Home Affairs asked for the evidence?

Mr Blackwood: Yes, we were proactive in providing it if there were something not covered—

Senator Roberts: So you sometimes did identify posts?

Ms Balmanno: We were proactive in providing evidence as new evidence came to light and adding to the evidence base. If there were an issue they come across that they thought was incorrect—for example, the idea that 5G was causing COVID was one of the early ones that we did a lot of referrals in relation to—and if we didn’t already have that in the evidence base, they would obviously check that with us in terms of an evidence assessment, and that would be added to it.

Senator Roberts: So it was a hybrid role, then. Sometimes you identifies posts—

Ms Balmanno: We very rarely identified posts.

Senator Roberts: But sometimes you did.

Ms Balmanno: We probably have a handful of examples where we identified posts, and I have agreed to take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/6 Comments/by

Last Chance to Have Your Say

Have your say and sign our petition by clicking on the links below. Help safeguard Australia’s democratic and ‘human’ rights to free speech.

There are only a few days left for you to ‘Have Your Say’ (while you still can) on the Government’s ‘Censorship’ bill giving ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation. One of the greatest sources of misinformation, government departments and their funded media, are excluded from this bill, making it not fit for purpose.

The sleight of hand in this legislation is in the use of the words “misinformation and disinformation”. If we replace those key words in this bill to the more accurate “truth and scientific fact” we can see it is a threat to the prevailing narrative preferred by government “for the safety and well-being of the Australian people”.

It is immediately apparent that the bill is aiming for Orwellian censorship. Such social engineering would see the elimination of thought crimes (freedom of expression) and the removal of the ability for citizens to access truth and protest Government mistakes, bad policy and restriction of freedom.

This bill demonstrates that this government and ACMA has no role or interest in the truth which is disturbing to the majority of Australians. The proposed code would “support fact checking” which has been revealed in the United States court to actually be a misnomer for “narrative reinforcing”. That this legislation is even proposed by a democratically elected Government is beyond comprehension. It must be defeated if we are to remain a free country where the truth, not ‘The Narrative’, should set us free.

Sign the Petition
Have Your Say
/11 Comments/by

Passing the Censorship Buck Back to Social Media

Government claims it did not censor information itself, but raised matters of inaccurate information that were then referred to social media platforms.

Cautiously keeping its own hands clean of censoring free speech, which in the case of COVID often turned out to be more accurate than the messaging from government departments, Minister Gallagher says the department only alerted social media platforms to what were considered inaccuracies at the time.

The posts in question are being claimed to have been censored by the platforms themselves. This is a foreshadowing of the upcoming Orwellian ACMA bill.

At what point does censorship start? At the communicated advice from government, or at the moment foreign corporations such as Twitter or Facebook hit delete? What do you think?

/5 Comments/by