Australia should govern in Australia’s national interest, not in the interests of the United States or any other country.
Australia has every right to make its own laws governing digital technology. The former Coalition government did exactly that when we introduced a world leading News Media Bargaining Code.
Equally, the White House, or any foreign government, is entitled to raise questions about how the Albanese Government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care would work in practice.
The Coalition has already made clear we have serious concerns about Labor’s proposal and the risk it poses to free speech, journalism and legitimate political debate.
Australians want children protected online and they want the world’s biggest technology companies held to account.
But protecting children should never become an excuse to give politicians sweeping powers over what Australians can say, read or debate online.
Many of the most serious harms identified in Labor’s draft laws are already prohibited under criminal law or regulated through the Online Safety Act.
But the problem is Labor’s proposal goes much further.
It relies on vague and subjective definitions of online harm, contains inadequate protections for free speech and journalism, and gives the Communications Minister extraordinary power to create new categories of harm without proper parliamentary oversight.
When online services face substantial financial penalties, the obvious risk is that they remove lawful material rather than risk falling foul of the regulator.
That creates a chilling effect on legitimate speech and debate.
Labor should be protecting Australians from online harm, not handing politicians a blank cheque to police lawful speech.
The Prime Minister’s comments today at a United Nations side event only deepen those concerns. He said:
“…whilst today we’re concentrating on the impact on children, the truth is this is having an impact on our entire society and how it functions with misinformation, disinformation, with the increased polarisation that we’re seeing as well in the political system, where people are moving away from the centre and more and more to the extremes, be they of the left or the right. And that is why we think that this [digital duty of care legislation] is a very positive move that’s being put forward.”
When these laws were announced, Australians were told they were about protecting children and giving people greater control online.
Today the Prime Minister described them as an “inevitable next stage” because of misinformation, disinformation and people moving to the political extremes.
That raises an obvious question: who gets to decide what constitutes harmful political material, misinformation or disinformation and political extremes?
Under Labor’s own exposure draft, Anika Wells has that power. That is exactly why strong safeguards for lawful speech, journalism and political debate matter.
Given the clear difference of views between the Australian and US governments on Labor’s Digital Duty of Care, the Prime Minister should use his visit to the United States to discuss the issue directly with President Trump.
Australia should stand up for its own interests while ensuring one of our most important relationships remains strong and stable.