QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Senator BELL (New South Wales—One Nation Whip) (15:42): I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to cybersafety. I will give this to Senator Farrell. He gave a very succinct answer to my question, which is quite interesting, frankly, because Senator Farrell often gives very long and detailed answers.
While his answer to my question was succinct, I would have preferred a more useful one. But you cannot have everything. I asked why Labor won't put its assurances about free speech into the digital duty of care legislation it has put before this parliament.
The minister had the chance today to commit to that answer. He had the chance to explain why Labor would not put stronger protections in the legislation. He did not.
Apparently, we are supposed to be satisfied because Minister Wells says that there's nothing to worry about. Well, we're passing a law; we're not asking for a character reference here, and there are reasons to be concerned. Experts are concerned.
A gentleman named Michael Shellenberger has been in Australia warning Australians about governments giving themselves more power over what people can and can't say online—governments giving themselves the power to monitor you and restrict your speech. You don't have to agree with everything he's saying to ask why those in power want their power to be so broad.
If the government says that we've misunderstood it, it has a fairly straightforward remedy for that: tighten up the wording. Instead, we get this business about mystery shoppers. That is how the government described these sock puppet accounts; it called them 'mystery shoppers'.
Labor wants to give government officials fake identities online. It tries to wave that away, saying they are mystery shoppers. But then it can't explain why we need them and, more importantly, why it won't accept clear limits on their use.
Frankly, I don't understand why Labor won't expressly rule out using those accounts on lawful political discussion explicitly in the legislation. It's all well and good to say it, but I would like—and I think many Australians would like—to see it carved in stone in the bill. People are entitled to go online and have their say, have their criticisms of us, all of us.
They're entitled to say the Prime Minister is doing a rotten job. They're entitled to argue about immigration or energy policy without wondering whether someone in a government office is acting like a mystery shopper or using a sock puppet account and taking notes or whether a government agency is putting material into that debate as well, because that is in the legislation too.
The government can create material and put it online. Australians ought to know if the things that they are reading are coming from the government. They ought to know where it's coming from.
Put the department's name on it. There's no need to invent a bloke named Barry who happens to agree with ministers. I'd ask Labor senators to think more seriously about this.
Would you be happy if we had those powers or if the Greens had those powers? I suspect you would want to read the fine print very closely. They certainly wouldn't settle for: 'Don't worry.
It'll be alright.' I think they'd be treating it a lot more seriously. I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, because it works both ways. The law has to protect people regardless of who wins the next election.
That means clear restrictions and independent scrutiny, not an annual summary after the event. That is what is in the legislation. They say that the actual information that they have agreed to provide occurs as a sort of annual summary.
There's no detailed itemised audit of the information these 'mystery shoppers', as they call them, will be collecting. No-one is asking Labor to abandon the protection of children or the prosecution of criminals. What we're asking is just to take greater steps to protect lawful speech as well—more scrutiny, more clarity in the legislation.
Don't try and wave things away and dismiss them. 'Mystery shoppers' and 'sock puppets' are really silly sounding terms, but they're really serious issues that should be treated seriously by this government. If it is already the government's intention not to do those things, then there should be no argument. Put it in the bill.
Question agreed to.