Topics: Digital duty of care, Wells travel rorts, private health insurance rebate, Greens investigation, EU free trade agreement
Andrew Clennell: Joining me live, Shadow Communications Minister, Sarah Henderson. Sarah Henderson, thanks for your time. Let’s start on the digital duty of care. The government is insistent this isn’t about censorship. You heard Tim Ayres, he says you’re about misinformation. They claim the opposition is just plain wrong on this. On what grounds do you say this is about censorship and misinformation?
Senator Henderson: Well, Andrew, good morning. Tim, obviously after that trainwreck interview, has no idea what’s even in the bill. The Coalition supports very strong measures to protect Australians online and also to hold big tech to account. We’ve got a very significant Online Safety Act, and of course, a great history establishing the eSafety Commissioner, but this is a bridge too far. This is information control because of the wide range of discretion, both that the minister has and also the eSafety Commissioner to determine what is harm online.
There are some dangerously vague definitions. There are ridiculous exclusions, including an exclusion that anything in the public interest doesn’t have to fall within the duty of care. Now that’s absurd in itself. And then, of course, we’ll see a situation where the eSafety Commissioner will then, through her powers, make determinations on what is prohibited and what isn’t. And we’ve also seen the government proposing some really frightening powers to create fake sock puppet accounts, which gives it the power to spread government propaganda. And we know, Andrew, that this is all part of the government’s motivation. The prime minister let the cat out of the bag in his speech in New York when he said the next stage of the digital duty of care is all about combating misinformation and disinformation and polarisation of views on the left and the right in politics. So this is a grubby attempt to shut down lawful speech online, and that’s why we believe this bill should be scrapped.
Andrew Clennell: You’re very convinced about this. The prime minister acceded last week to take away those ministerial discretion powers on serious harm. Was that helpful?
Sarah Henderson: Yes. So there was the decision made to remove the ministerial’s unfettered powers to determine any category of online harm that could be prohibited, but she’s effectively shifted those powers now to an unelected bureaucrat, the eSafety Commissioner, who can make any sort of guidance in relation to how the digital duty of care is interpreted. Now, this is a complicated bill, but we are also very concerned that the minister has unfettered powers in relation to user empowerment tools, so any sort of design of any online service. And look at the attack on small business. This applies to every online service, Andrew. Even low-risk small business websites now under this proposal have got onerous compliance obligations. So the minister is simply not telling the truth about what is in the bill. I even had a situation where she was saying in the press club, Oh, we’re not about the manosphere. We want that to continue, and all this debate to continue online. And yet, in the departmental briefing I had, I was told specifically that some of the definitions of online harm were to combat the manosphere, the podcasters, and the like. So this is a dangerous and undemocratic proposal, and that’s why, of course, we’re subjecting this to a Senate inquiry. The devil is in the detail but some of the powers the government is giving itself are very alarming.
Andrew Clennell: Because you said you’re about addressing online harm, how tight could you make legislation so that you can make sure it doesn’t create political censorship? In your view, is it possible?
Sarah Henderson: Well, I believe that the current Online Safety Act, which includes mandatory codes and standards governing unlawful material and age-restricted material, is the right approach. It’s very concerning that those codes and standards are being removed from the Act, so that in fact puts the online safety of Australians at risk. Because currently, Andrew, there are very clear prescriptive obligations on the digital platforms to do things like identify and remove child sexual abuse material, terrorism material. That is all being stripped out of this Act and out of this proposal. So that’s really concerning. We really do need very strong prohibitions against serious online harm.
Now, of course, the government has proposed a particular measure in relation to nudify apps. Now, they are covered in part by the codes. Perhaps there’s a proposal that they may want to bring forward in relation to that. But this wide-ranging duty to keep Australians safe online, which could mean anything, gives the minister and also the eSafety Commissioner wide-ranging powers to shut down lawful speech, and also, if these powers were to be abused, to spread government misinformation and propaganda. I mean, it’s there in black and white, and clearly the minister is just going to try and mislead Australians about what’s in this bill.
Andrew Clennell: Do you think the Greens will pass this legislation anyway?
Senator Henderson: Look, I don’t know is the honest truth. I mean, the Greens have been all over the shop but they should not pass this legislation because it also attacks potentially the left side of politics, and whatever you believe, whatever side of the political pendulum you are on, we should protect free speech. So, if the Greens are concerned about free speech, about expressing their views about the things they believe in, I mean, many things they believe in, Andrew, I vehemently disagree with but I respect their right and anyone’s right to express their view. So the Greens should not pass this legislation. This is as much an attack on the left of politics as on the right. It is all about information control, and to put those powers in the hands of any government and any future government is very dangerous.
Andrew Clennell: What do you think of this concept of the My Feed, My Way reform that they’re proposing?
Senator Henderson: Well, firstly, when the Prime Minister announced the legislation and talked about My Feed, My Way, those provisions were not even in the exposure draft. So he blatantly lied to Australians. Now, of course, there are some proposed rules in relation to controlling the algorithm. I do think there can be a legitimate debate about whether Australians should be able to access a non-profiled algorithm, as is the case with other countries, including the EU. But what’s in this bill is a very different proposition. The minister has given herself unfettered powers to make any rule in relation to any tool or design of any online service, including in relation to the algorithm. So potentially, if any government wanted to abuse its powers, it could decide, look, we are going to favour an algorithm which promotes and amplifies government messaging or government propaganda. We just cannot give those powers to this government, or frankly, to any government.
Andrew Clennell: Anika Wells, do you think she’s lying about this meeting with the South Australian minister at her friend’s 40th, and do you think she should pay back the money?
Senator Henderson: Yes, I do think she is lying. I think she has lied to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, IPEA. It’s clear that there is no evidence that the meeting with both Minister Farrell and also with Chris Picton occurred. There’s been successive freedom of information documents uncovered, and you’ve referenced those at the beginning of the show. It was Minister Farrell’s staff. No proof whatsoever.
Andrew Clennell: Sorry, it was Minister Farrell’s chief of staff, not Minister Farrell, am I right? I think you just said it was Minister Farrell.
Senator Henderson: That’s right. Yes, so that’s true. It was his office. So it’s Minister Farrell’s chief of staff. We did a FOI search in relation or a request in relation to that meeting. We haven’t got any documents back which shows that that meeting went ahead. So we can’t prove that that meeting with Minister Farrell’s chief of staff went ahead and there is certainly no evidence of the meeting with Chris Picton went ahead
Andrew Clennell: If she had other official engagements, like a press conference or something, can you explain the benefit of her having these meetings later in the day in terms of her entitlements?
Senator Henderson: So what she’s done, she’s argued that her parliamentary business finished early in the evening with a nonsensical claim that she had a meeting at a birthday party with one of her closest friend’s husbands, who happens to be a South Australian Labor minister, and by claiming that her parliamentary business finished early in the evening, if that was true, she would then be entitled to fly home on the taxpayers’ dime. Now she could have stayed overnight if her parliamentary business finished at lunchtime, which is what I think happened. But then she would have had to have paid for the return fare. So not only should she repay that fare but I think the prime minister needs to stand her down. It’s clear she has lied. It’s clear she has lied to IPEA and also to the parliament.
We’ve got myriad of questions on notice. 93 days we have been waiting for those questions to be returned, including details as to when that meeting with Chris Picton took place, where it was, how long it took. She’s refusing to answer those questions because she has lied. And this government has got a habit of lying. They’ve lied on electricity prices. They’ve lied on the Budget, toxic tax changes. The Prime Minister lied about the terrible slur on the Japanese Prime Minister on that shocking podcast he did. This is in Labor’s DNA but it is very clear that Anika Wells has lied about this trip to Adelaide. She was not on parliamentary business, she was at a birthday party. The whole thing is a rort, and the Prime Minister needs to take action and stand her down. As I say, the music and the party is over for Anika Wells.
Andrew Clennell: It’s been put to me that between July 20 and August two last year, you spent $1,069 on parking costs. Can you tell us what that was for?
Senator Henderson: Well members of parliament are able to claim parking costs when they’re engaging in their parliamentary business. I haven’t got those documents before me, Andrew, but that’s an appropriate cost.
Andrew Clennell: Do you remember why you’d spend $1,069 in 13 days on parking? Where were you parking?
Senator Henderson: Well, so generally my parking costs are incurred when I travel from regional Victoria to Tullamarine when I travel to Canberra. So most of my parking costs are incurred when I park at Tullamarine Airport.
Andrew Clennell: I wanted to ask now about why is the opposition blocking these private health insurance rebate reforms from the government. Don’t we need this money for aged care?
Senator Henderson: Well, this is a terrible attack on older Australians and the government has also misled Australians about the impact it would have. Of course, they said some 44,000 Australians were projected to let go of their private health insurance, but it’s almost double that amount, and we are very proud to have led the charge to block this terrible legislation, which puts over 65s at a very significant disadvantage at a time when they’re counting every penny. Andrew, if you’re a pensioner, you are counting every penny. And the horrendous increase in the cost of living under this government, it is almost impossible to pay the bills to get to the grocery stores, and this shocking hit on older Australians just goes to show that Labor does not care about older Australians.
Andrew Clennell: What’s your view of the allegations around Jordon Steele-John and how they’re being dealt with?
Senator Henderson: Well, the Greens have got a lot of explaining to do. It is appropriate that there should be a proper, I hope, independent inquiry into these allegations. And as I say, I think the Greens have got more to say about this.
Andrew Clennell: Why is the opposition blocking the EU free trade agreement? Is this the Nationals leading the Liberals by the nose?
Senator Henderson: No it’s not because I think there’s widespread concern that this deal is not good enough for farmers, for businesses, for exporters. We want to see a better trade with the EU, but it cannot be a one-sided agreement, and particularly for beef and dairy, we are very concerned about some of the proposals. We are also concerned about some of the proposals in relation to climate change and how that might impact on our domestic law here in Australia. So we think the government has got more work to do, Andrew. We want to see a strong deal with the EU. We’ve got a very strong history of doing fair and free trade agreements right across many jurisdictions. But this is not a good deal for Australians, and that’s why we want to see the government do better.
Andrew Clennell: Sarah Henderson, thanks so much for your time.
Senator Henderson: Thanks, Andrew.