Posts

One Nation vs. The ABC

This is my exchange with ABC representatives and Minister Green regarding bias, accuracy, and fairness.

I raised a podcast appearance by the ABC Chair where he criticised One Nation’s approach to choosing which journalists and media outlets we engage with, labelling it “undemocratic” and a “dark and dangerous place,” noting that this pejorative phrasing has uniquely targeted my party.

I pointed out that politicians across all parties routinely give interviews to trusted journalists and use written statements or text messages for others, to prevent their words from being manipulated. I questioned why One Nation exercising this standard discretion is treated as uniquely improper.

I confronted officials over biased and insulting commentary from prominent ABC commentators such as Patricia Karvelas implying One Nation is an “illegitimate” political force and guest panellist Niki Savva labelling our party as fundamentally “racist and bigoted” – without any pushback from the taxpayer funded network.

The mainstream media is increasingly being seen by the public as partisan mouthpieces. Why should taxpayers continue to fund a $1.3 billion public broadcaster in an era of abundant independent digital media?

A One Nation government will strip the ABC of public taxpayer funding for its broader operations, pushing it into a subscription-only or commercially funded broadcaster where it’s supported only by those who choose to watch or use it. This does not include regional and rural areas, as local and regional radio provides an essential service to people in these locations.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is a slightly long question, although it is important to be accurate as the public’s perception of ABC independence or bias is central to your role as a public broadcaster. Mr Williams, the Chair, on the Poll Position podcast around 23 May this year was asked about an incident when ABC employees were removed from a press conference in the Farrer electorate and a separate incident in South Australia where a staff member continued to shout questions at Senator Hanson after the press conference was over. Your reporter was asked to shut up, for which the party apologised and the staffer involved apologised. The interviewer’s question to Mr Williams included the statement that One Nation were picking and choosing who we let attend our press conferences, calling it pretty undemocratic. Mr Williams’s response was: Well, I would endorse that view—that it’s undemocratic— I think if you’re going to choose who you talk to and who you don’t talk to, you’re in a dark and dangerous place in democracy. And I think politicians are accountable to the people and they don’t get to pick who’s going to question them. Mr Marks, can we agree that this is an accurate summary so we can move on to the questions? 

Mr Marks: I think you referenced a journalist who was told to shut up. I’m not aware that was our journalist.  

Senator ROBERTS: No.  

Mr Marks: Sorry, I thought you said it was an ABC journalist.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought. Sorry.  

Mr Marks: No, it wasn’t an ABC journalist. I’m sorry; it was my understanding.  

Mr Fang: I don’t believe it was either.  

Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that mistake, but I’m getting to the key question, which is Mr Williams’s response.  

Mr Marks: I think Mr Williams’s response refers to the importance in a democratic society of informing the audience. The audience must come first. In doing so it’s important that all parties of prominence and otherwise as well—people who have an impact in our political system—are able to bring views, opinions and statements from those parties to the public. We operate on the basis that the public must come first. To the extent that our people who turn up to do the job are deprived of their ability to inform the public, I think that can be a problem. That’s something that we need to keep investing in, the importance of making sure that the public are informed about everything that has to do with what happens in this place.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your budget is around $1.3 billion. What’s the exact number?

Mr Marks: Here’s an answer for Ms Kleyn.  

Ms Kleyn: Yes, that’s correct. The exact number in FY26 is $1.229 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Value and accuracy—you left out the word ‘accurate’ public interactions?  

Mr Marks: Sorry. Accuracy comes first. Accuracy goes to impartiality. Accuracy is the most important standard that we operate by.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re agreed—good. My questions go to value, accuracy and compliance with the ABC Charter. Every day in this place politicians give interviews to journalists they trust and emailed press statements or text messages to those they don’t trust to prevent their words being manipulated. Isn’t it true that One Nation’s actions are about lack of trust in the quality, accuracy and motivation of ABC reporting, a discretion we’re entitled to exercise and is exercised every day in this place by all parties?  

Mr Marks: I won’t comment as to the motivations behind any One Nation action. That’s obviously a matter for you and your colleagues.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can tell you we think we’re getting reported in a very biased way.  

Mr Marks: We have an obligation, as you say, to report matters accurately and we have an obligation to report matters impartially. If anyone has a concern about our performance on those metrics, we are more than happy to have a conversation about that. In fact, I am endeavouring to do that, without much success, at the moment. That also comes with the expectation that policies, people et cetera should be subject to scrutiny. That is the journalistic process. Yes, we have to report accurately and we have to impartially, but also the notion that people should be subject to scrutiny and questions when performing all of the functions that happen in this place, I think, is a really important principle that goes along with that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would agree. Minister, isn’t it true that in this place parties give interviews to journalists they trust and send written statements to journalists they don’t trust?  

Senator Green 

: It’s not really a question for ABC estimates, but I’ll answer it for you to assist you. Members of both parties of government give interviews to a range of news outlets and they invite a range of news outlets to their press conferences because that public scrutiny is important, particularly if you are promoting yourself as a party that not only has policies that could be formed in government. What we are now seeing is that your party has a primary vote that means you may now be the new opposition. It’s important that every member of parliament is scrutinised by news outlets, whoever they may be. I’m not going to pass a judgement on which news outlets are more trusted or least trusted. I think the judgement of Australians is that, when you turn up to this place and you’re asked a question, you should answer it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the judgement from Mr Williams when he said that, if you’re going to choose who you talk to, you’re in a dark and dangerous place?  

Senator Green: I’m not going to comment for the Chair. I think that’s a question for Mr Marks.  

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the fact, Mr Marks—  

Senator Green: Are you in a dark and dangerous place?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not.  

Senator Green: There we go.  

Mr Marks: I think the answer to that question is what I referred to earlier, which is that it is very important that we perform our role accurately and impartially, but with due inquiry, due inquisition and due curiosity in everybody who operates in this environment to ensure that we are informing the public of the things that are important to them and relevant to them and the things that are of interest to them. I have no doubt at the moment with the way that the political landscape is forming that things that are happening within your party are of interest to Australians, and it is important as the ABC that we’re able to inform them, and it’s important that we’re able to engage with your party on the basis that we’re able to serve the public. I think that’s a very important function for us to fulfil.  

Senator ROBERTS: The public want fair engagement and impartial engagement. Doesn’t the fact that Mr Williams highlighted us doing that, in terms of responding verbally to interviewers we trust and responding in text messages to interviewers we don’t, without mentioning that other parties do that as well show that he is biased against One Nation? He tried to say we are the only ones doing it; that’s the clear implication of that leading to a dark place for democracy.  

Mr Marks: You’re referring to a podcast that I haven’t seen, so it’s difficult for me. I can only talk about the quotes that you’ve referenced and the quotes I’ve seen in the press, and I can’t talk to Mr Williams’s motivations in that particular podcast. All we can talk to is facts, and the facts are the ABC currently is the most trusted media organisation in the country, according to the public. We have strong editorial principles and practices that are very important that we operate; I agree with you on that. We have the most robust complaints handling process that’s available in the media in this market that’s available to people who view they’re not being treated fairly in that process. We can always do better; there is no doubt about that, and that is our constant aim. The principle of informing the public and being very vigilant in doing that is the most important principle we abide by. I think not being able to engage fully with all political parties in that process inhibits our ability to do that effectively and I think that is a problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: Again you missed the word ‘accurate’—to inform people accurately. A search of Mr Williams’s media statements shows he has not used the phrase ‘dark and dangerous place’ in previous media comments around any other party, just One Nation. How is using a pejorative like that in keeping with your need to maintain a perception of independence and accuracy?  

Mr Marks: Again, I can’t comment on Mr Williams’s motivations. I know he is a passionate advocate of democracy and I know he’s a passionate advocate of informed democracy. I know he’s a passionate advocate for accuracy and impartiality. Maybe he gets some of the words wrong, but they are his motivations, which I think we’re all agreed with in this place. Did he get every word right? It doesn’t sound to me necessarily based on your assessment; because I haven’t seen the podcast or listened to the podcasting questions, it’s hard for me to comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to a topic you raised a minute ago, policies. Mr Williams said in the podcast: Perhaps their concern is because they are such a policy-free zone, but I say that objectively, not in any spirit of partisanship. One Nation has statements. It doesn’t have policies. However, our website has many more policy statements than the Liberal or Labor parties. Some of our policies have been copied by both the Liberal and Labor parties and by other parties. In the last election we used fully costed policies and are releasing even more detailed policies at the moment. Why is Mr Williams perpetuating an internet falsity to denigrate One Nation?  

Mr Marks: Again, Mr Williams is the Chair of the organisation. I am the editor-in-chief. There is separation of powers between the board and Mr Williams, who represents the board as Chair, and me as editor-in-chief. They were comments made by Mr Williams. They don’t reflect the views of the ABC. As you say, it is important that the policies of One Nation are subject to the same interrogation as every party’s policy and they should be treated equally, accurately and impartially.  

Senator ROBERTS: We welcome that. We love it. Our gas policy is getting plaudits everywhere. That’s fantastic. Patricia Karvelas allowed her strong bias against One Nation to show through in the Farrer election program. She stated: It was actually people like Ron Boswell … who campaigned to put One Nation last … you’ve got the most conservative people who believed it was a big and dangerous mistake to legitimise One Nation and to embolden One Nation. She also stated: Here we’ve had … Angus Taylor make a deliberate decision to preference One Nation above the independent, which tonight could really be one of the reasons they get across the line and that will legitimise them. Patricia Karvelas also stated: I used the term earlier on … the permission structure—if they are able to win their first lower house seat, that begins the process of legitimising them. She’s clearly implying that we’re illegitimate. How is this acceptable commentary? It’s clear bias and it’s insulting and denigrating and it’s hurting the ABC and that $1.3 billion that the taxpayers are investing in your corporation. 

Mr Marks: I’m going to disagree with you in relation to that particular broadcast, which I’ve gone back and watched a few times. If you watch that broadcast in its entirety, Patricia Karvelas also makes a number of other comments. She says that there’s no better poll than an election. She says that this is the result of 30 years of work by Senator Hanson to lift the party at this stage. She says that this is a major political shift. She says that this is a major win for One Nation. In the comments that you’re referring to, which are a selected part of that whole broadcast, she’s referring to comments that were made by Senator Boswell—I’m not sure in what era or what time—that refers to the politics. Remember Ms Karvelas is a political analyst. That refers to the political decision to preference one party over another and what the outcomes of that might be. If you listen to the broadcast as a whole, I think you can be in no doubt that broadcast was accurate; it was impartial. We would stand by Ms Karvelas’s comments when taken as a whole across the broadcast. Do you want to add anything that I might have missed in that?

Mr Fang: No, I think you captured it. Senator, you read out some more of Patricia Karvelas’s analysis that has been quoted in some other places, including the reference to Senator Boswell. I think Patricia Karvelas was making reference to previous politics around One Nation and around the Liberal and National parties’ approach to One Nation in the past, and that was contextualised across the coverage.  

Senator ROBERTS: Anyway, we can all celebrate Senator Whitten, because the ABC has now given us the blessing of legitimacy. The next day on the Insiders program—  

Senator Green: I think Angus Taylor did that. Maybe the people of Farrer did that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The next day on the Insiders program regular panellist Niki Savva made the statement that the ‘Liberal Party, in preferencing One Nation, was aligning with a party which, at its core, is racist and bigoted’. When comments like this are not corrected—they’re not factual, they’re dishonest—when your staff are not told to keep commentary to factual matters, how can you whinge about us not empowering you to take another swing? This isn’t journalism. The ABC is creating a dark space through political advocacy.  

Mr Marks: I’ll ask Mr Fang to respond to that particular instance.  

Mr Fang: You’re referring to comments made by Niki Savva on the Insiders program. She’s not an ABC staff member. Insiders is a panel show where various journalists—  

Senator ROBERTS: She is being legitimised by being your guest.  

Mr Fang: are brought on to express their opinion. It’s pretty clear to the audience that was her opinion and not the opinion of the ABC.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a retired person who had been a miner in the Pilbara in the 1980s. He said back in the eighties all they had in terms of entertainment broadcasting was ABC Radio and ABC TV. He says nowadays we can go anywhere in the world, get podcasters, get independent news sources, private, government—a huge range. So, why do we need the ABC?  

Mr Marks: It’s a really good question and it’s a question that we occupy ourselves with constantly, looking at that changed competitive environment.  

Senator ROBERTS: We can give you some help with policies if you like.  

Mr Marks: I don’t think we’re here for policy. I think we’re here to create an organisation that should be the universal source of accuracy, that should be the place of due impartiality, because a lot of the context that you refer to is actually an increasingly divisive and more perspective driven media environment. Our role in that environment has to be—and this is why it’s so important that we meet our editorial standards—that we are the place that should be the source of truth, the place where people know, even though they’ve heard a lot, they say, ‘I’m going to go to the ABC and see what they have to say about those facts.’ That’s No. 1 when it comes to news and current affairs. No. 2, why do we need the ABC? When it comes to children’s programming, nobody else in the country or in the globe is servicing Australian children other than the ABC. When it comes to emergency broadcasting, the ABC carries unique responsibilities for ensuring the dissemination of information about emergency matters both through the ABC and through other third-party channels in relation to issues of national importance. When it comes to telling Australian stories, whether that be comedy, whether that be documentary, whether that be adult drama, whether that be entertainment shows, increasingly it is the ABC that is becoming the home of those Australian stories and becoming the supporter of the independent production sector. Many medium and small businesses all around the country rely on commissions from the ABC to function. When it comes to Australian music, we are the one big supporter of Australian music that exists still today. We operate on the basis where our channels cover more than 50 per cent music across Triple J, Classic Country, Double J—various channels, all very focused as big supporters of Australian music. Again, it is an environment where most other music services are very globalised. If we really want to invest in what is the nature of Australian social cohesion, what is the nature of the Australian story, who are our Australian characters, that is our responsibility; we take that very seriously. Without us, a lot of that would be lost and lost forever and subject to a globalised environment. I actually think we have more in common than not. I actually think we’re all in it for the same reason: to ensure that Australian stories are connected with Australian audiences, and that is a big part of my function. We talk a lot in this room about news and current affairs, and there will always be views and perspectives on the quality, editorial strength, accuracy and impartiality of our news and current affairs. We accept that’s part of the exercise, that’s part of our attendance here today, but we do a lot more than that and that lot more, I think, can often be underestimated.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the day when the ABC achieves the standards you’re talking about.  

Mr Marks: Wish me good endeavours to achieve the best possible vision of the ABC that we can. We are going to have to reposition ourselves into the competitive environment that you mentioned. It means doing things differently. It sometimes means choosing to do different things. I think it will mean partly being more distinctive at times and partly doing more detail in other environments. We need to be able to be changed to reflect the different competitive environment that you’ve identified.  

Senator ROBERTS: I put it to you that the free, independent people’s media is rising because the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media, is now being seen through by people increasingly all over the world. 

/0 Comments/by

eSafety Commissioner’s Actions Questioned

,

The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.

However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.

Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.

Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.

The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.

I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.

The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.

One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I, first of all, pay a compliment and I’ll read out some statistics. From the ACMA annual report 2023-24, the office of the eSafety Commissioner has received 13,824 complaints regarding web URLs, with 82 per cent relating to reports about child sexual abuse, child abuse or paedophile activity. This is a 19 per cent increase from the previous year. Your office sent 9,190 notifications related to child sexual abuse material to the INHOPE network—which I understand are the good guys, the right people to work with—and referred 130 investigations to the Australian Federal Police. On cyber abuse, you received 2,695 complaints to the Cyberbullying Scheme for Australian children and 3,113 complaints to the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme with a removal rate of 88 per cent where removal was required. My opening comment is simple: well done; thank you very much. This is important work. 

My first question is that you finalised 9,461 critical investigations into terrorist and violent extremist content, representing a 229 per cent increase—that’s amazing—in these types of complaints from the previous year. I’d like to ask about that. How do you define terrorist and violent extremist content? 

Ms Inman Grant : I will turn over to Ms Snell to talk about that. That is part of our illegal and restricted content team under the Online Content Scheme. 

Ms Snell : I’m actually going to invite Mr Downie, who is the executive manager for our Investigations Branch, who oversees this work, to talk specifically to this. 

Mr Downie : When we’re dealing with terrorism and violent extremist content under the Online Safety Act, we deal with terrorism as defined under the Criminal Code to the pure definition of what a terrorist act is. However, when we’re applying the Online Safety Act, we apply the content according to the classification scheme, and we’ll classify that material as ‘refuse classification’, which then falls into class 1 and class 2 definitions. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is this content relating to Australian content or international content? 

Mr Downie : With the complaints that we receive, we receive content that can be generated or hosted anywhere in the world, but the key is that it’s accessible by the people within the Australian community. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you seek this content out yourself, or do you rely on a complaint before acting? 

Mr Downie : Generally, we rely on a complaint before acting; however, we do have own-motion investigation provisions where we are then able to further conduct investigations to locate material that may be in furtherance of that complaint. 

Senator ROBERTS: Of those 9,461 completed investigations, what was the outcome, please? 

Mr Downie: I’d have to take that on notice for the specific details of those investigations, but in the majority of cases that content is removed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any demonstrable benefit from you taking this material down? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of this aspect of your office? 

Mr Downie : Having access to that type of content, whether it be globally or not, is very harmful to members of the community. That material can be used to incite violence. It can be used to radicalise vulnerable people or youth, which, as we’ve seen in the media, can be then used to incite further violence within the community. So less access to that type of content can only be beneficial for the Australian community. 

Ms Inman Grant : And I’d note that ASIO Director-General Burgess has said that the vast majority of terrorism investigations conducted right now are of young people between the ages of 14 and 21 and in every single case they have been radicalised somehow on the internet. You would probably also be aware of, heartbreakingly, the stabbing video of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, which was geo-blocked here by X but was available in the rest of the world. In the sentencing of the 17-year-old Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, who went and stabbed three little girls to death while they were making bracelets at a Taylor Swift themed dance party, that very video, that very Wakeley stabbing video, he accessed on X 25 minutes before he stabbed those little girls and claimed that that was his inspiration. So you can imagine that this is something that the UK government has wanted to talk to us about. We have a partnership with Ofcom. We of course have different powers, but I think it’s just a very powerful reminder that this kind of content is accessed by young people. It can normalise, desensitise and, in the worst cases, radicalise. 

Senator ROBERTS: On page 206 of the ACMA report, there’s a graph which shows X is the source of five per cent of your cyberabuse claims and Google four per cent, compared to Facebook at 25 per cent. Page 216 of your report lists major noncompliance actions. X has four and Google one. Why does X occupy so much of your time? 

Ms Inman Grant : In terms of adult cyberabuse? 

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of terrorism complaints and cyberabuse. 

Ms Inman Grant : If you recall back to 16 April, around the Wakeley stabbing, we worked with all platforms. With the exception of Meta and X Corp., they all did a good job in trying to identify, detect and remove the Wakeley terrorism video. We weren’t satisfied that either Meta or X did, but, once we issued formal removal notices, Meta responded and complied within the hour, and, of course—you know the story—X said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ That’s what has taken our time. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about the others? That would apply to one of your complaints against them. What about the others? Why the other three? 

Ms Inman Grant : It depends on the type of harm. For instance, when we’re talking about youth based cyberbullying, most of the cyberbullying happens on the top four platforms where children spend their time, on YouTube, TikTok, Snap and Instagram. When it comes to image based abuse, there’s a much higher proportion now of sexual extortion targeting young men between the ages of 18 and 24. They tend to meet on Instagram, sometimes on Snap, and then they’re moved off platform. So it depends on the form of abuse. It also depends on the complaints we get. But, when it comes to the terrorist and child sexual abuse material, we go to where the content is hosted and shared. 

Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question. You’ve got four major noncompliance actions against X and only one against Google, yet you’ve mentioned several platforms. Why does X have to occupy so much of your time? 

Ms Inman Grant: Because they did not comply with our notices. Google came close to not complying, so we gave them a formal warning. 

Mr Fleming : Those tribunal and court cases are often initiated by X, so we’re responding to the claims that they make challenging our powers. That’s why they feature the most. 

Senator ROBERTS: The report goes on to list how many notices are issued under each part of the act yet does not provide a detailed list. This is fine for child and adult abuse material, of course. We’re happy with that. For class 1 extremist and violent material, why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and the reasons why? There’s a widespread belief in the public that you’re overstepping on your choice of material to take down. 

Ms Inman Grant: Respectfully, I’d like to read from some weighted and validated surveys of the Australian public. In November 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 87 per cent of those surveyed supported the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that do not comply with Australian laws, 77 per cent supported the proposed ban on social media for children and 75 per cent supported the Australian government’s plan to introduce a digital duty of care. In August 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 79 per cent said that social media platforms should operate with a regulator with the power to order content removal. That seems like a pretty overwhelming amount of support from the public. 

Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t my question. My question was: why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and a breakdown of the reasons why? 

Ms Inman Grant : We provide as much transparency as we can. You would understand that confidentiality is incredibly important. We can’t describe these in great detail. We can’t name names. What kind of information do you think would be helpful to your understanding? That’s something that we can certainly look at in the interests of transparency. 

Senator ROBERTS: The specific behaviours, without breaching confidentiality, would be helpful. We wouldn’t expect you to breach confidentiality or name names—certainly not—but we would like the types of actions that the commissioner thinks worthy of a takedown notice, as I said, and the reasons why. 

Senator McAllister: The commissioner and I are trying to understand, with a little more precision, what sort of information. You’re simply saying a generalised list of examples that are deidentified— 

Ms Inman Grant : Of 40,000 complaints we receive annually. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re dealing with them, so presumably you know what they are. I’d like to see some sort of classification so that people could understand the proportions, because at the moment I don’t think you’re accountable for that. 

Ms Inman Grant : We can take that on notice. We would have to look at privacy and confidentiality. We would also have to look at resource implications and how that might serve the public interest, but we’re happy to take a look at that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think the people have a right to know. Referencing unofficial takedown notices, which I note are issued under section 183(2)(zk), these go to the question of your secrecy. If these are dangerous enough to require a takedown, then they should be dangerous enough for you to list out by making the register of takedown notices public knowledge—that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise, you’re simply exercising power without any accountability, power that can be abused. How would we know? Can you, Commissioner, point to one terrorist act you’ve prevented, one person you’ve deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? 

Ms Inman Grant : I go back to what D-G Burgess often says, ‘You’re never congratulated when you stop something from happening.’ Again, do we have to have more heartbreaking examples of, like I just explained to you, what happened with those three little girls murdered in Southport, UK? We’ll never know. What I do know is I have parents coming up to me and saying: ‘You’ve saved my son’s life. He was sexually extorted. He had just turned 18. He went to the police; no-one would help him. I wasn’t going to let it go. I found your website. Your investigators supported him, got the content down, gave him advice and sent him on to mental health support services.’ So I do know that we’re saving lives every day. 

How many cases of 12- and 13-year-old girls being cyberbullied and bullied do you need to prove that this is a veritable epidemic and that young people are losing their lives? We’re here to help them and to prevent that from happening. My biggest regret, if there is one, is that more people don’t know about us. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population knows about us, but we do everything we can to help people. When we stop helping people and making the online world a safer and better place, then, yes, it’s time to hang up our hats, but we’re just getting started. 

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Ms Inman Grant, you didn’t answer my question— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have to rotate the call. There are a lot of senators who wish to ask questions. 

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to clarify that one. 

CHAIR: I can come back to you, if you wish. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’ll only take a second to do this. 

CHAIR: Go on then. 

Senator ROBERTS: I asked, ‘Can you point to one terrorist act?’ I accept you’re doing a good job. You’re preventing child abuse, no doubt about that. We’ve discussed that in the past. Can you point to one terrorist act you prevented, one person deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? That’s what I want to know. 

Ms Inman Grant : We’re not going out into the public asking young people if they saw a particular video that radicalised them or not. We do know when people have been radicalised by content that has been online. Some of the gore content that we’ve taken down includes the manifestos, the horrific imagery of people at Christchurch huddling in the corner while being shot. Anything that’s dehumanising that we are able to get down to not cause further pain to victims and their families and have not incite others into taking the same action, I think, is worth doing. I don’t need proof that I prevented this, that or the other from happening. We’re trying to make the internet a safer, more positive place with less violent extremist material, and that’s why we take these issues so seriously. 

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is with— 

CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Darmanin— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put one more question on notice. 

/by

Multi-Million Dollar Defamation Bill Due to ABC Arrogance

Former Special Forces Commando Heston Russell repeatedly asked for a correction and an apology for stories the ABC published that defamed him and November platoon. The ABC accused them of committing war crimes in Afghanistan at a time when they weren’t even in that country.

Heston had to sue the ABC for defamation instead. The judge noted the ABC became defensive and considered any criticism as merely part of a culture-war attack. If they had responded properly, the taxpayers could have saved millions of dollars.

The response from the Minister shows a similar level of denial and lack of accountability, answering serious questions with cheap political taunts. What the government needs to remember here is that special forces commando, Heston Russell, was a victim of disinformation published by the ABC. It was an ordeal that he calls the ‘hardest battle he has ever fought’.

As the Government failed to answer, their Misinformation and Disinformation Bill WOULDN’T protect people like Heston Russell from fake news by the ABC as they’ll be excluded from the Bill.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Former special forces commando Heston Russell repeatedly asked for a correction and an apology for stories the ABC published that defamed him and November Platoon, accusing them of committing war crimes in Afghanistan at a time when they weren’t even in that country. He offered to settle the case for $99,000, which the ABC refused, and proceeded to trial. The defamatory articles were brought to the attention of Minister Rowland, the Minister for Communications, by a 26,000-signature petition, which she acknowledged on 20 March and on which she failed to act. Minister, what is the cost to the taxpayer for the ABC’s legal fees in this matter so far? 

Senator WATT (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) : Thank you, Senator Roberts, for that question. I will have to take on notice the exact details of that question that you’ve asked. Presumably, these are matters that you’d also have the opportunity to ask the ABC at estimates next week. So I am happy to come back to you with any details that I can provide on that. The broader issue around any defamation action taken against the ABC is really a matter for ABC management. Of course, this government believes in the independence of the ABC and, in particular, its editorial independence. 

Senator Rennick: You mean the bias. 

Senator WATT: Senator Rennick, on the other hand, thinks that it’s a biased organisation. That’s a very disappointing remark to make about the national broadcaster but perhaps one that we’re used to after years of ABC cuts under the former government. It would appear that Senator Rennick isn’t the only member of the opposition who regards the ABC as biased. Again, it’s a very disappointing view to express about the national broadcaster—the only publicly funded broadcaster. Again, it probably indicates why the ABC suffered such severe funding cuts under the former government. 

So, Senator Roberts, you’ll obviously have the opportunity to ask those questions of ABC management at estimates next week. I know Senator Henderson always has questions for the ABC as well, so she will no doubt do that again next week. 

Senator Ruston interjecting— 

Senator WATT: Sorry, Senator Ruston, we get to answer the questions, and I’ve already— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, across the chamber! Minister Watt, please refer to me when you’re answering the question. Senator Henderson? 

Senator Henderson: On indulgence— 

The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Henderson. Resume your seat. Minister, please continue, or have you finished your answer? 

Senator WATT: I actually answered the question in the first five seconds by saying that I’d take those details on notice. But I’m obviously able to then comment on the question more broadly, and that’s what I’ve spent one minute and 55 seconds doing. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The judge in this trial was scathing of the ABC journalists involved in the case, saying they became defensive and considered any criticism as merely part of a culture-war attack and this inhibited ‘a proper remedial response to criticism’. The ABC journalists thought they were part of a culture war, and that prevented them from acting impartially and reasonably, leading to a potential multimillion dollar bill to taxpayers. Minister, what consequences will the journalists involved face for eroding people’s trust in the ABC, and why hasn’t their employment already been terminated? 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m pleased to inform you that Australia now has a government that doesn’t have political interference in the ABC and so we have no intention of repeating the sort of intervention that we’ve seen— 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator Canavan: Where’s the accountability? 

The PRESIDENT: Order! 

Senator WATT: from some of the people who are yelling across the chamber now in matters involving the ABC. These are matters that are the responsibility of ABC management, and we respect their independence. I understand, Senator Roberts, that the Federal Court has obviously handed down its decision in these defamation proceedings. There do remain several settlement matters before the court, so I probably shouldn’t be commenting any further on what might happen there. And, as I’ve said, the ABC is responsible for managing its legal matters, including defamation claims and litigation, just as any media proprietor, whether it be publicly funded or privately owned, is responsible for managing its legal matters, including when it’s sued for defamation. We believe that the ABC is a trusted source of news, information and entertainment for all Australians and we support it. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation published by the ABC in an ordeal that he has called the ‘hardest battle he has ever fought’. Can you please confirm that Minister Rowland’s misinformation and disinformation bill would not cover the ABC and won’t protect people like Heston Russell from government disinformation? 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m very pleased that you’ve taken an interest in matters involving misinformation and disinformation. I welcome your sudden interest in misinformation and disinformation, and I hope that that’s something that you will retain an interest in when it comes to election campaigns that you’re involved in, Senator Roberts. I really do hope that you do that. We’d like to hear more about that. 

Senator Canavan: Mediscare was a great example! 

Senator WATT: And, Senator Canavan—he’s a big fan of misinformation and disinformation as well, so I look forward to Senator Canavan supporting us in tackling misinformation and disinformation. 

Senator Rennick: Where’s this greenhouse that you keep talking about? Talk about disinformation— 

Senator WATT: Oh, and Senator Rennick. We’ve got everyone! We’ve got all of the kings of misinformation and disinformation up commenting today! 

Senator Rennick interjecting— 

Senator WATT: Hello, Gerard; how are you? Of course, the government does have legislation before the parliament to deal with misinformation and disinformation. We think that it is an important issue in today’s media environment, particularly in the social media environment that we’re operating under, and we think that it’s an important piece of legislation to deal with. 

/by