Transcript - ABC News Afternoon Briefing with Greg Jennett

GREG JENNETT, HOST: Let's get straight into the mechanics of what the Government does to get things done when it's got a hostile Senate against it. In the race to get Bills passed this year it's arguable no Minister has as much stacked up on the to-do list as Michelle Rowland.

There's a move to ban teenagers, from under the age of 16 that is, from social media; there's an attempt to restrict advertising of online gambling services; and then, highly contentious laws to control misinformation and disinformation online. On that one, the Communications Minister is in full swing, trying to muster support from a sceptical senate and she's embraced the help of technology research and advocacy group, Reset Tech. Alice Dawkins is from that group. She and the Minister joined us here in the studio.

JENNETT: Michelle Rowland, Alice Dawkins, welcome to Afternoon Briefing. Let's frame your purpose of being here - the Combating Misinformation and Disinformation bill very much hangs in the balance in the Senate, pending a committee report coming forward next week and numbers which, let's be frank, are not quite there at the moment. Michelle, among the many which I am sure you are being asked now is, even if well-intentioned, how is this not censorship?

MICHELLE ROWLAND, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS: Let's be very clear, we have protections from harms in Australian law and they are balanced against individual freedoms all the time. The fact of the matter is, with this bill we are striking a balance between both freedoms of expression and protection from harm, and the harms are real. The harms include threats to our democracy, they include serious threats to people's health and safety, and they can also be perpetuated by enemies of Australia. We know this because it is a concern of our top spy, it is a concern of our Defence forces, it is a concern of our Electoral Commission, of the ACCC and of the ACMA.

This is an issue that 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about. This Bill has been very carefully crafted to take into account human rights obligations, including freedom of expression. There are explicit carve-outs for specific purposes. But this is fully aligned with our international obligations and imposes nothing more than transparency on the systems and processes of digital platforms.

JENNETT: All right, Alice Dawkins, Reset Tech, you’re here, I’m sure encountering many questions from senators you’re meeting. What is - to pick up on Michelle's point, the best and most recent example of misinformation or disinformation here in Australia that senators might ask about that would be captured and prevented by these laws, if they existed?

ALICE DAWKINS, RESET TECH: I think the clearest example to us, Greg - because Reset Tech Australia does work on election integrity, we do work on the distribution and promotion of online content, not necessarily service level issues of speech at all - the clearest and I think most urgent case study here is about foreign interference into our public debate, into democratic thought and expression. If we drop this Bill, there is a door that is closing that I think might even remain shut when comes to this particular type of modern digital phenomena.

JENNETT: So, a crucial part to all of this, Michelle Rowland, is verifiably false information, which implies that you have to have rigorous fact checking to get that test established, what is verifiably false. Various people who operate in this area told the Senate inquiry that that is difficult for a Silicon Valley tech based company to fact check over, for instance, claims about the Australian Constitution in the context of The Voice debate. Is naïve to think that they would?

ROWLAND: Well, I think it is naïve for Australians not to be aware of the ways in which big tech is monetising the spread of harmful myths and disinformation. We even had the committee examining social media in Australia, looking into this issue. Every proponent there is concern about the lack of transparency of digital platforms. They’re concerned about the spread of mis and disinformation and we know that, in Australia, our top spies, as I said, are concerned about this. The harm to electoral integrity are very real. These harms have the opportunity to be addressed now or never. This is the opportunity.

JENNETT: What are the most persuasive argument that you employ? When you’re talking to politicians, Alice, where do you sense that their concern comes from? Is it about electorally based misinformation and disinformation? Is it about health and vaccines? What’s driving their curiosity or their reservations?

DAWKINS: Look, those are certainly narratives of concern, Greg. What’s concerning everyone is the opacity of these systems and processes that the tech platforms are making decisions on in the dark. Whether it’s algorithms or whether it’s paid for content like advertising systems, we have absolutely no meaningful oversight of how these decisions are getting made and they’re decisions that affect Australia's information environment and its information resilience.

JENNETT: Why can't we do it in other ways? Only last week, Michelle, you foreshadowed a legislated digital duty of care which has a preventative trust to it. And again, the onus would be on the big tech platforms with that piece of legislation. Why not establish that and see how it goes before you move down what is clearly a more controversial path here?

ROWLAND: Well, there are two aspects of this Bill. The first is establishing the clear areas of harm and secondly, imposing transparency obligations. That is what this Bill seeks to do. We should also be very aware, as Alice said, there is a complete lack of transparency from the platforms when it comes to how they curate and serve up information. They are not passive purveyors. They are actually pushing out content. They are aware of what they are pushing out, but the Australian public is not. This Bill will give the opportunity for the first time, for that transparency to be applied, for users to understand the way in which this information is curated and presented to them.

I would also point out, this is an area where, yes, Australia is at the forefront, but we are not outliers. This is very much consistent with the approach in the EU. Again, the moment here is critical. Artificial intelligence is the vector for harms in this space. Every regulator, every intelligence officer will tell you that fact - this needs to be addressed.

This is the Bill that addresses the bot farms, the trolls are making sure that people who would seek to harm us, be they rogue states or bad actors, are brought to account by the digital platforms who are currently monetising from their very existence.
 
JENNETT: Well, if we accept that, Alice, that argument put by Michelle, there are a lot of vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Elon Musk would be one of them. What about his recent statements on freedom or his added responsibilities, if you like, in the future Trump administration suggest to you that he or any other platform would comply with Australia's legal regime?
 
DAWKINS: Look, Greg, I'd like to pick up on the Minister's point that this is not a level playing field when it comes to the policy making settings, when it comes to the public debate itself, which has been so polarised unnecessarily. I want to be very clear this is not a content regulation bill. This is a platform accountability bill. It's a system transparency bill, and I admit that sounds a little complex, but that's the point.
 
JENNETT: But can they be held to account?
 
DAWKINS: Of course. That's what laws are for. We're a sovereign nation. That's what we do.
 
JENNETT: Even small - by way of population and remote geographically nation?
 
DAWKINS: Greg, I’m not...
 
JENNETT: That is, by your own admission and Michelle's, leading the world here.
 
DAWKINS: I'm a little tired of the legal fatalism. Our law is no weaker than a European law. It's coming from the same sort of source. There's no reason why we can't enforce something where there's an accountability need to do so.
 
JENNETT: Alright. Technical question that has been raised by the critics, Michelle, the distinction in a definitional sense, between misinformation spread perhaps accidentally and disinformation spread deliberately, as the Bill anticipates. Why is that necessary?
 
ROWLAND: Well, we do want to distinguish between those kinds of inauthentic behaviours in disinformation, for example, and also by saying that there is a difference between what is intentional and not, that does draw that distinction that already exists under the voluntary Code of Practice. I should stress, there is currently a voluntary Code of Practice to this very issue. The problem is it's not enforceable. There are no penalties, and the very voluntary nature means that it doesn't capture the ecosystem, but the harms. It is the harms that we are looking at here. The harms can be exactly the same.
 
JENNETT: I'm sure by your mere presence here, Alice Dawkins, you remain eternally confident that this Bill might pass into law. Is that being tested, though, that confidence in your discussions?
 
DAWKINS: I won't comment on its prospects, Greg. That's not my area, but what I will comment on is the incredibly important moment in time we're facing with this issue and this framework that is being mentioned by the Minister. My organisation is the sole successful public complainant on that framework. To all the critics of this bill, I encourage them, have a go at that voluntary framework, have a go at seeking accountability from big tech with what we have, and then you might be able to understand what these definitions mean in their practical context and why this matters.
 
JENNETT: Do you think you've swayed any in your own interactions?
 
DAWKINS: Too early to comment.
 
JENNETT: Alright, perhaps well advised. Greens have flagged, Michelle, some level of interest and they haven't fully declared their position on this Bill in including at least one mainstream media organisation. But let's just say, for argument's sake, all mainstream media organisations, is that open for consideration?
 
ROWLAND: Well, they are expressly carved out because they are subject to their own professional standards. But I will say for the Greens Party that I certainly appreciate the engagement, particularly from Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, and even in her own comments on the social media inquiry, she has noted the lack of transparency and the importance of addressing mis- and disinformation. We look forward to continuing to engage with her and with the crossbench to get this done.
 
JENNETT: It will presumably have more momentum once the committee report comes back early next week. If you don't mind, Alice, I'll just put one more sort of political question, I suppose, to Michelle, concerning the Parliament. Time is, of course, running out this year. Michelle Rowland, you've got this Bill to negotiate, social media ban for teens and the outstanding online gambling advertising restrictions. You did promise a, quote, comprehensive response this year. Will that be done by legislation this calendar year?
 
ROWLAND: We are aiming to have it done this year. The issue as I have said, is that this relies not only on the Commonwealth, but also some aspects of the States and Territories and across different parts of Government. So certainly that has been our intention. We're working very astutely towards that.
 
JENNETT: With legislation as opposed to Codes of Practice?
 
ROWLAND: Well, we'll take advice on that, but the Government has made no decisions in this regard. We've been consulting widely and it is our intention to reach a conclusion on that as expeditiously as possible.
 
JENNETT: In the remaining days, I mean, there's only - to state the obvious - the balance of this week and all of next.
 
ROWLAND: We're aware of that. We're also aware that there's a number of other very important pieces of legislation before the Parliament. Obviously, this is an area that has been of high concern, but we do want to make sure our response is comprehensive and robust and we get it right.
 
JENNETT: Alright. Look, a slightly different format to our interviews and conversations here on Afternoon Briefing today. But I think informative all the same. Alice Dawkins, Michelle Rowland, thanks so much.
 
ROWLAND: Thank you.
 
DAWKINS: Thank you.