GREG JENNETT:
Well, the government and X have already faced off in the Federal Court briefly, and they'll do so again perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Each seems determined to prevail, and Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, has regulatory responsibilities over social media activities across several policy fronts. He joins us now from Sydney. Stephen, welcome back to the program. Elon Musk has clearly flagged that he's going to fight the Australian Government, the eSafety Commissioner in the court as a matter of principle, and we'll come to that, that's the substantive matter, in just a moment. Can I just ask on the way in though, Senator Ralph Babet has reposted the offending video today arguing for free speech or some such. Does that undermine the government's argument in this case?
STEPHEN JONES:
Oh, look, you know, over the last week we've seen some really fantastic behaviour by Australians, putting themselves in harm's way to help other Australians, putting their own interests aside, running towards danger, not away from it, and I think that's the Australian way. We've also seen some pretty unfortunate behaviour, and Senator Babet's behaviour is exactly that. He's putting his own political thoughts and interests ahead of the concerns and feelings and anguish and trauma that the victims, the witnesses and the families are going through after these horrific events over the last week. Look, I think Senator Babet should reflect upon his own behaviour. He's well out of touch with where mainstream Australia is at, and you know, whether it's Elon Musk or Senator Babet, it's not a fight we're after, it's an outcome. If we've got to have a fight to keep our Internet safe, to keep our social media platforms social, and to ensure that they're a safe place for Australians to meet and talk, then we'll do that. But Senator Babet really has let himself down over the last 24 hours.
JENNETT:
All right. Let's move on to the substantive matters. Can you give us a state of play here, Stephen Jones, with what I understand to be only a few hours to go before the take‑down interim order injunction that was put in place last night should take effect. Has X actually complied, obviously in connection with the Wakeley stabbing?
JONES:
Well, they're fighting it, and they've made it quite clear that they don't intend to comply, and that, you know, they intend to snub the Australian laws, Australian lawmakers and Australian regulators, and as the Prime Minister has said, ‘Not good enough’. We'll defend the public interest and the Australian people, whether it's against an arrogant millionaire like Elon Musk or anyone else who wants to flout the rules of public safety in this country.
JENNETT:
Is that also perhaps suggesting that he's not being honest, Elon Musk, because you'd be aware that he put a message out on his platform that amongst other things, earlier today said, ‘We have already censored the content in question for Australia pending legal appeal, and it's stored only on servers in the USA.’ So you're right, he is appealing in the Australian courts, but has he in fact already censored the content in question for Australia?
JONES:
My understanding is that he's complied on an interim basis to an interim order, and he intends to fight it, which makes the actions of Senator Babet even more reprehensible. He's actually acting in contempt of what the court has decided is the right thing to do on an interim basis that this material is not safe to be published and broadcast around the country, and whether you're complying with the law or just the basic human decencies that should operate by any political representative in this country, he's way out of step. So in relation to X, we will fight this, not because we want to, but because we have to; we'll fight it not because we want to fight, but because we want to have an outcome for the Australian people, and whether it's in relation to this or other issues that I've been working on to keep our social media platforms safe, in the area of economic crimes, in the area of violent crimes like this, and the work that Michelle Rowland's been doing in the area of sexual material that's being transmitted on these platforms. We're determined to keep them safe, and we're not going to flinch from that.
JENNETT:
All right. I do hope to move on to scams and some of your work on that front. But can you clarify for us, is the Commission, the eSafety Commission in the current dispute with X arguing that because Australians use VPNs, X must pull down all footage of the Wakeley stabbing on all servers globally? What is the jurisdiction that's being asserted here?
JONES:
The jurisdiction that is being asserted is the jurisdiction within Australia. As I'm advised, and I'll stand corrected on this, it's the content that is available to Australian people. Now, in terms of the technical details of whether that extends extraterritorially, that's a question best put to the lawyers over at the eSafety Commission. But I just want to be quite clear on this; it's Australians, Australian users of social media and the Australian public that we're adamant must be kept safe.
JENNETT:
Yeah, because Elon Musk, again, to quote him from his own messaging on his platform earlier today is clearly under the impression that there was at least some representation at the Federal Court last night that did go to extraterritoriality. He said, ‘Our concern is that if any country is allowed to censor content for all countries’ – which is what the Australians are doing – ‘then that will stop any country from controlling the entire Internet.’ Does he have a point about jurisdiction here, and you know, containing the aspirations of any country that regulates this area to only their own territory?
JONES:
Our concern is about what is published and broadcast in Australia, Greg. But I'd be absolutely certain that other countries around the world would share the same concerns. I mean after the massacres in the mosque in Auckland a few years back, the New Zealand government had the same concerns about having that material livestreamed and then republished, and in the United States they've confronted this issue, in France, in Germany, in Great Britain and right around the world, democratic countries are rightly concerned about the material that's being broadcast on social media networks. And I just want to make this point: freedom of speech is not unlimited in this country or anywhere else, and it has always been limited by the responsibilities that come with that, and in many instances, those responsibilities are enshrined in law, and that is what the eSafety Commissioner has acted upon. It is simply irresponsible for this dangerous, violent material to be broadcast and published on a social media platform or anywhere else, and that's what we're concerned about.
JENNETT:
All right. I do want to ask about other platforms, and I will in just a moment. Last one on X though. Last time I checked, I think you still had an active account. Would you consider boycotting it? Do you intend to maintain it?
STEPHEN JONES:
Yeah, look, good point here. I use Twitter – old language – I use Facebook, I use Instagram, I use most of the social media platforms, because I think they're a good way of keeping in touch and staying in touch with what's going on around the world, I know most journalists do as well, and a lot of Australians go to these places for news and information, and it's all the more reason why the news and information there must be varied, it must be lots of debate, we don't want a sterile environment, but there is some responsibility to ensure that it's not being used to promulgate dangerous, violent, offensive material such as that which is subject to this court case. We're not trying to have Twitter or anywhere else a zone that is, you know, absent of political debate or contention or argument; of course they should be, and that's why I use it.
JENNETT:
Sure.
JONES:
But there's got to be some guardrails, there's got to be some boundaries, there's got to be some rules. This can't be used as a factory for misinformation, for bots, for criminals, for scammers to publish their harmful material, and let go unchecked.
JENNETT:
Yeah.
JONES:
You couldn't do it as a broadcaster, a newspaper or a radio station, and social media plays exactly the same function.
JENNETT:
Well, it definitely has its place and function, and Australians by the millions have voted accordingly in adopting it and maintaining it. Stephen Jones, has TikTok fully complied with take‑down orders around the Wakeley stabbings as far as you're aware?
JONES:
As far as I am aware, they have, but I'll stand advised by you and others if they haven't, but as far as I'm aware, they have. As far as I'm aware the outlier here is Twitter, which is why they're the subject of the legal proceedings.
JENNETT:
All right. No, thank you for clarifying that. I had heard a suggestion that they may not have or may not have fully complied, but I don't have enough evidence to the fingertips to assert that they have either way. Let's move on to your work in scams, financial scams, Stephen Jones. You are looking to hold social media companies very broadly, not just X by the way, to account. Do you anticipate that they will be – that there are any indicators coming to us from the violent video episodes of the last week or so that indicate bad faith or reluctance to comply with where you're going on financial scams?
JONES:
Well, I hope that is not the case, but if we need to have a fight over this, we will. It's not the fight we're after, it's the outcome, and we don't want Australians continuing to lose $3 billion a year through the scams and frauds that are being published on social media platforms and elsewhere. Yes, we are going to have tough new standards on the social media platforms, also on the banks and also on the telecommunications companies, because we've got to have that whole ecosystem included in the new legal framework. Social media, like, they're at a crossroads; they've got a number of disputes on with Australian Governments and other governments around the world. You know, we've got a blue on with Facebook at the moment; it seems to me that it's more important for Mark Zuckerberg to take journalists off Facebook than it is to take criminals off Facebook, and that just doesn't wash with the Australian people. We want these places to continue to flourish, but for them to be a safe and reliable place for Australian communities to talk to each other, to publish information, without being subject to dangerous, sophisticated scams, violent conduct, and the other stuff that is subject of our activity.
JENNETT:
Okay, and so what penalties –
JONES:
We need to clean it up, it's as simple as that, Greg; we need to clean it up. There's a bit of a mess there at the moment, a dangerous mess, and it needs to be cleaned up, and the Albanese Government is adamant that we are going to do that.
JENNETT:
Yeah. I encounter Australians regularly who seem to intersect with phishing and other forms of scam and fraud. Penalties: what's the big stick that you'd be proposing as you head down this area, for the social media companies in particular, we might leave other entities like banks and telecommunications carriers to one side for today?
JONES:
Well, there will be a high standard for the social media companies and the others to comply with. That is an obligation to take down the criminal and offending material. There will be an obligation, if somebody reports, that they act quickly, not having these things stuck out there continuing to lure in more victims day after day after day, for them to proactively monitor their platforms to remove scams and frauds and other criminal content, and if they don't do that, and if somebody acts on the material that is published on their platform, yes, there will be fines, but there will also be liability for the losses that somebody encounters. I mean there's been a lot of focus on the banks, and yes, the banks have to be in the frame as well; if they've done the wrong thing and they've breached their code and losses flow, then banks could also be liable. But social media platforms, the biggest companies in the world, they're not getting off scot‑free, they'll be included in the new framework.
JENNETT:
All right. Well, we might keep across that with you as you develop it further, and wrap it up there for today, having covered a fair bit of ground, I think, Stephen Jones. Always good to have you on the program. Welcome back. We'll talk soon.
JONES:
Talk soon.