Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020. Last week, we saw a blatant attempt by a foreign owned company, one of the world's largest corporations, to bully Australia. The tactics used by Facebook to make its point included taking down the pages of children's cancer charities, domestic violence fundraisers, state health departments, women's legal services, and even government websites responsible for issuing emergency and weather warnings. The reason for this unacceptable behaviour was that the Australian government is seeking to make laws that ensure that big tech companies do not abuse their market power in relation to Australia's journalism and news industry. Facebook or any other company is entitled to express a view and take a position on legislation proposed by the Australian government. But what kind of company would take down a children's cancer charity page to make their point?

Countries around the world are becoming increasingly concerned about the market power of big tech and the way in which those companies are using that market power. Last year, a US Congress inquiry into big tech found that companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple wield their dominance in ways that erode entrepreneurship, degrade citizen's privacy online and undermine the vibrancy of the free and diverse press. The committee report from that inquiry was critical of the testimony of the CEOs of those corporations, saying:

… answers were often evasive and non-responsive, raising fresh questions about whether they believe they are beyond the reach of democratic oversight.

Facebook's actions in Australia last week clearly raise the question of whether it believes it is beyond the reach of democratic oversight in this country. Quite clearly, their actions were designed to heavy the Australian government and, indeed, this Senate into not proceeding with this bill that we're discussing here today. They want to send a message that they are bigger and more powerful than the Australian people—that they can press a button and change the minds of those of us elected to represent the Australian people in the nation's parliament. Today, we are here sending the message that that is not the case.

It's hard to deny that massive corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google have made themselves central to public life and daily communication in Australia. Over the last decade, they have become primary methods for government departments, health and emergency authorities, news media, politicians and political parties to disseminate information amongst the public. It has become a fair expectation that a government health department, for example, has a Facebook and a Twitter account. People have become accustomed to going to these pages to find the information they need. Yes, there are obviously other ways they can find out that information from those organisations. But, if you don't see the information in the way that you are accustomed to, what guarantee is there that you'll go and visit a website and track it down for yourself there?

One could, of course, make the argument that nobody is compelled to use these services and that it's not compulsory for these companies to provide a platform to every individual or organisation. That's true. But nobody could deny that, in 2021, trying to communicate with a large audience without relying to some extent on these big tech platforms—Facebook, Twitter, Google—is going to seriously limit the number of people you can reach. I acknowledge the decision of Google, in this instance, to act responsibly and negotiate with Australian news media organisations to reach a fair commercial outcome regarding the sharing of journalism on its platform. Nevertheless, we still have a situation in Australia where any of these major corporations have the power, if they choose to use it, to destroy an Australian business or to affect the outcomes of a democratic election in Australia.

One of the most concerning actions of Facebook last week was that, in the midst of the Western Australian state election campaign, it suddenly and without warning took offline the page of the Western Australian opposition leader. People from all sides of politics have denounced this action because it reveals a very serious potential problem for our democracy. That problem is that these platforms are so dominant and play such a major role in how our society communicates with each other that, if some participants in an election have access to platforms and others don't, we can reasonably expect that to have an impact on how people vote. What happens if big tech decides that it doesn't want a certain party to form government at the next election or that it doesn't want certain senators elected? Does anyone really doubt that these massive foreign companies could have a major impact on the results of our democratic elections or that, if they thought it was in their commercial interests to do so, they would?

Even before last week, it was clear that big tech companies were willing to take sides on political issues in public debates and remove access to their platforms to people they judge to have the wrong point of view. It's well documented that Twitter, for example, regularly bans accounts of women who tweet about sex based rights for women. One of the most egregious examples that has been brought to my attention by constituents is an account which was banned for tweeting that 'only females get cervical cancer'. Twitter judged this comment to be a violation of its rules against hateful conduct. Is it any wonder, when Twitter bans simple statements of fact like that—a fact which is central to how we fight a deadly disease that kills millions of women—that we see other media censoring the same views in universities, governments and other institutions, developing policies which are increasingly out of touch with reality? It's just one example of how tech giants can and do play a major role in public policy debates by using their power to determine what is seen as acceptable speech and what isn't, and what a politician or a political candidate can say and what they can't.

While Facebook is clearly front of mind at the moment because of its misguided behaviour last week—and we've heard extensively across the chamber from other senators expressing their views about this—we shouldn't overlook the fact that Twitter also has huge market power over the flow of information. As others have pointed out, these tech companies, like Twitter and Facebook, have very poor records at tackling illegal content on their platforms. Both have, frankly, been repeatedly too slow to take down accounts distributing child abuse material. Both have hosted material promoting violence and terrorism. When this is pointed out to them, they claim that it's too difficult to find and take down these accounts. Yet Facebook had no problem pushing a button last week and banning all Australian news content. And Twitter has no problem removing an account that tweets that only females get cervical cancer.

Of course, if Facebook or any other company doesn't wish to offer news content on their site, that's up to them. Ultimately, if that's the path they're going to pursue, then it's up to their customers to determine whether they will keep using a platform which doesn't offer any real news or journalism. But what wasn't acceptable was the decision by these companies, by Facebook, to try and bully the Australian government and the Australian parliament into making a different decision by suddenly and arbitrarily banning all sorts of pages, as we saw last week. In my own state of Tasmania, the Facebook pages of our Women's Legal Service and Sexual Assault Support Service were both shut down. This is an absolute disgrace. It's been well documented that charities and essential services were also taken offline without any justification or prior notification. Mark my words: this is not the behaviour of a good corporate citizen.

It has been interesting to note the reaction from around the world to Facebook's actions. Much of the commentary has focused on the fact that what Facebook is trying to do is to send a message to the governments of other countries. As I referenced earlier, the issue of the dominance of big tech and the impact those companies have on businesses and on our democracy is one which many countries are grappling with. Other nations may or may not choose to pursue the same type of law we are debating here today, but it's clear that many nations will be taking steps to curtail the abuse of market power by big tech. That's why leaders from other countries have urged Australians to stand our ground and not to back down. Once again the world is looking to Australia as a leader in standing up to attempts at coercion, and once again the Australian government is showing leadership by demonstrating our sovereignty and our commitment to making laws which this parliament deems to be in the interest of the Australian people. As the Prime Minister has said repeatedly over the last 12 months, Australia does not respond to threats. We are a sovereign nation and we are not going to be bullied or coerced by other nations or by foreign corporations worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

It has been pleasing that politicians from all sides have supported this principle and made it clear that Facebook's actions last week were utterly unacceptable. I sat in the chamber last night and listened to a range of contributions, and it would appear that the concerns I have raised in my short remarks in the chamber today are widely shared. It's one of those unfortunately rare moments in this place when we, as parliamentarians, come together and, while we might disagree on the manner in which we determine to solve a problem, agree that a problem exists and something must be done to rectify it. That's why, as a nation and as a parliament, we will continue to pass laws which are in the interests of our society, our economy and our people. After the events of last week, it might be the case that in the future we need to make further laws to tackle the undue influence of massive tech companies on our democracy. If that is the case, I'm confident that the government will, as it has always done, take advice from the experts and consult at length with the public and all affected participants and businesses before passing legislation.

It would be remiss of me, in making these remarks to the chamber today, not to mention the good work of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, chaired by Senator Slade Brockman, who is in the chamber. The inquiry that they undertook into the very piece of legislation we are discussing here today canvassed many of the issues that I have raised in my contribution, around the market power that these big tech companies have and the pervasive and somewhat disruptive impact they have had in terms of both our media landscape in Australia and, more broadly, our democracy.

As one of the younger senators in this place, I am of the generation that effectively grew up with Facebook and Twitter and, before that, Myspace, although that is not necessarily what we're talking about here today. When I was compiling my notes to speak on this bill, I was thinking about how social media has changed the way that we communicate with each other and, more importantly, how we get information. Fundamentally, it has changed massively in the last 10 to 15 years as fellow millennials have grown up and embraced social media. We've seen all of the good that it can do but we now see some of the challenges that it raises, and I think it's really pertinent that this government and this parliament have turned their minds to some of these issues and are looking to address them with the bill we are debating here today. I suspect more needs to be done, but this is an incredibly important space for government to be proposing solutions in.