ALI MOORE:
Well, the federal government has well and truly picked a fight with social media giant Meta, AKA Facebook, and X, the former Twitter, and it’s planning tougher laws to crack down on violent content and misinformation. But how far will they get? Billionaire Elon Musk has essentially mocked the government’s demands for the removal of content, and it’s not the first time. The social media giant is actually in court right now over other demands by the eSafety Commissioner. So are the tech giants beyond the reach of Australia’s laws?
Stephen Jones is the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services. Minister, welcome to Drive.
STEPHEN JONES:
Good to be with you.
MOORE:
Both sides of politics have warned that platforms like X, formerly Twitter, and Meta, Facebook, can’t operate outside the law, but essentially they are, aren’t they? They seem to be ignoring demands to remove content.
JONES:
Well, the commissioner has given a lawful direction to Twitter to remove the offensive content, and they should follow that. Instead, you know, they’ve mocked the Australian people, the Australian law and said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ Well, we’ll meet them in court. But I encourage Elon Musk and, in fact, the other social media operators to think again. They should not be in any doubt about the Australian Government’s determination to ensure that we have safe social media platforms operating in this country. Whether it’s offensive and dangerous content like you’ve talked about in your introduction or whether it’s the scams and criminal frauds that are going on, it’s got to stop, and we’re going to introduce laws to ensure that we lift the bar right across the board.
MOORE:
So we just deal with current rules at the moment. Exactly what power does the eSafety Commissioner have? You said you can take them to court. X itself has noted – Elon Musk has noted that there are fines of as much as $782,000 a day. But that’s sort of the theory. In actual practice, what’s going to happen?
JONES:
Well, in practice what’s going to happen is that the Australian Government is going to ensure that our laws are obeyed, whether it’s by Elon Musk, whether it’s Mark Zuckerberg, whether it’s any of the companies that are operating in Australia. If they’re operating here they operate in accordance with Australian law, and if the Australian laws are not fit for purpose, we’ll ensure that they are, because we are adamant that we’re going to keep our platforms safe – safe from the dangerous criminal sorts of content that we saw published after the Bondi massacre and safe from the scammers and other criminals who are ripping billions of dollars off Australians. It’s the same problem, and the problem is the social media platforms on the one hand want to get as many eyeballs as possible on to their platforms – and they make money out of that – but on the other hand they don’t want to comply with any of the norms or any of the rules that apply to any other publisher in this country, and it's not good enough. And the Australian people have had enough of it.
MOORE:
And if they break the law, what do you do?
JONES:
Well, they’re accountable to the law, like any other business that operates in Australia. And we will ensure that we use the full force of the law that’s available to us. And where there are gaps in the law – and I’ve spoken to you about where we think there are gaps in the law in relation to scams – we’re going to close those gaps to ensure that we lift the bar on every business that is operating in this area.
MOORE:
I’ll come back to the gaps, but, I mean, X is already in the Federal Court. They failed to – this is the allegation – truthfully and accurately provide information to questions on notice. And that came after they failed to pay the eSafety Commission a fine of over $600,000. So they seem to just not necessarily be paying any attention to what the law of this land is.
JONES:
Well, if they thought the law had no impact on them, they wouldn’t be going to court. So the fact that they’ve turned up – their turning up to court and making applications there are an indication that they think there is a question to be answered. We’re confident that the eSafety Commissioner – who’s a world‑class regulator, Julie Inman Grant is a world‑class regulator. She’s not some newbie who’s just jumped into this area. Appointed by the former government, an excellent regulator doing a tough job. And we’re backing her 100 per cent. And whether it’s through this court case or any of the other processes that we’ve got on foot at the moment, we’re adamant to keep our environment safe, our people safe, our kids safe. It’s why we’re pushing forward with mis and disinformation bill, which is all directed at the same area – to ensure that, you know, whether it’s Twitter or X or whatever you call it or whether it’s Facebook or any of the other platforms, they don’t operate as a lawless society unto themselves.
MOORE:
You’re listening to Stephen Jones, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, and we’re talking about the social media giants and Australian law. So, Minister, are you absolutely confident that the tech giants are not beyond the reach of our law?
JONES:
Well, they can’t be. You know, multinational organisations like Meta and X, they’re not sovereign entities. They operate in countries and they’ve got to comply with the laws of those countries. And that is true in relation to the content they publish. It’s true in relation to taxation laws. It’s true in relation to so many other areas of regulation. And just because they operate out of another country, that doesn’t mean when they operate in Australia and publish in Australia they’re not accountable to Australian law, just as they would be accountable to the law of any other jurisdiction that they operate in. I mean, I think people are just a bit fed up to the back teeth of, you know, these billionaires who, you know, show juvenile responsibility thinking that they can do whatever they like and they’re not accountable to the elected governments of the countries that they operate in. They may have got away with that for a while, but it won’t be the future.
MOORE:
You talked about whether our law is fit for purpose and gaps in the law, which we have talked about on this program before. Do you see the key gaps as being around misinformation and disinformation that are addressed under new draft rules that – you’ve got draft legislation, but it’s yet to get through parliament.
JONES:
This is fundamental to democracy. If more and more Australians are going to a social media platform to get their news and information, then we’ve got to ensure that the news and information is safe and reliable. That doesn’t mean that there’s only one opinion there – of course there’s got to be a flourishing of opinions. But there’s got to be some rules. And you can’t run a newspaper or a radio station or a television company in this country and just say and publish what you like. There are rules currently which direct and dictate what people can say, whether it’s defamation laws, whether it’s incitement to violence laws, whether it’s publishing false and misleading commercial information. All of these operate and apply to every media company in Australia, and if they get it wrong, they pay a high price. And that should be no different to the social media platforms. You know, you’ve got to ask yourself a question: why is it more important to Mark Zuckerberg that he removes journalists from Facebook than it is that he removes criminals and criminal content? Because that’s the direction they’re headed in in Australia at the moment. They’re headed in a direction to remove journalistic content from Facebook, but when it comes to criminals or unlawful activity they say, ‘Oh, that’s all too hard and we can’t do it.’ Well, frankly, the government’s had enough of that and the Australian people have had enough of that. We’re losing billions of dollars and it’s doing untold social harm, and it's got to stop.
MOORE:
I know that these billionaires have talked about this amounting to censorship. And without necessarily going to the inflammatory side of it, do you see a challenge, Minister, with striking the right balance between protecting freedom of speech but also ensuring that you don’t have a proliferation of harmful content? And I think that, you know, everyone would agree that what happened in Sydney and the stabbing, that we’re putting that very much at the extreme end of harmful content. But there’s a lot of other stuff that sits in a grey zone.
JONES:
You know, there is grey zones, but there’s some stuff that’s pretty black and white. Under the law today there are legal prohibitions which limit free speech. There is not a country in the world where you’ve got a more flourishing respect for free speech. But even in Australia you can’t publish seditious content, you can’t publish incitement to violence, you can’t publish racial hate speech, you can’t publish libellous, slanderous, defamatory information, you can’t in commercial matters publish misleading and deceptive information and you can’t publish misrepresentation in relation to commercial matters. That’s the law as it stands today. So there are already laws which limit what people can say and do in their publications. And what we’re saying is, you know, yes, we want free speech, but it comes with responsibilities.
MOORE:
Can I just finish, Minister, with a very different issue – I’m curious to know your thoughts on 2 would‑be politicians who are planning to job share should they get elected for Higgins at the next federal election – Lucy Bradlow and Bronwen Bock. They’ve launched a joint run for the seat as independents. They propose to work part time. What do you think?
JONES:
Look, I know it would challenge our existing electoral laws. Under the existing law one person is accountable and one person is responsible. I struggle to see how it would work. I mean, it’s a novel and interesting idea. I struggle to see how it would work just in my own experience as an MP –
MOORE:
But if they were happy to give it a go, do you think that the rules could change so it could happen?
JONES:
We have this system of responsible government, and it’s not just a theory; it’s actually how government works. And it means that I’m accountable for the things that I do and I say, and I’m personally accountable for that. And once you get to a situation where you’re saying, well, Stephen’s responsible on Monday and Judy’s responsible on Tuesday and Stephen’s responsible again on Wednesday but not on Thursday or Friday and every third week somebody else is going to do the weekends, that becomes incredibly difficult for the way responsible government and accountability works in this country. So, you know, just as in the workplace where we encourage all sorts of family‑friendly and job‑sharing arrangements, there are some areas where it just doesn’t work. And turn your mind to, you know, a lot of the large business entities and other corporations in this country, it would be incredibly difficult to be the CEO of the ABC or just about any other large entity in this country and say but you’re only accountable half the days of the week and somebody else is responsible the other half of the days of the week. I think that would be very, very difficult indeed to implement. So –
MOORE:
Maybe it’s just a mentality, Minister. Maybe it’s something that we have to get used to.
JONES:
Look, that’s something that, you know, should be tested as this debate plays out. But in my experience and in the practice I think there are some roles where it’s absolutely able to be done and some where it is incredibly difficult indeed. And I think this is one of them.
MOORE:
Stephen Jones, many thanks for talking to Drive.
JONES:
Good to be with you.