Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to support this motion from my good friend the member for Mallee. I also find myself agreeing with a fair bit of what the member for Chifley has said about the importance of this issue. It's the second time I've found myself on a unity ticket with the member for Chifley, after his comments on aviation. It's becoming a bad habit for me to agree with you, Member for Chifley!

But I wanted to particularly rise and express my support and my great concern about this issue as it goes for me and my community. Being one of my generation, I've lived much of my life with social media and it being a presence in our everyday lives. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I am obviously, as most people in this chamber are, a strong believer of freedom of speech and the freedom that we have to express our opinions. However, there needs to be a line drawn when it comes to issues that pertain to safety and there has to be a reasonable discussion about a level of accountability that has to be taken by social media companies as publishers.

Social media is so powerful and is such an opportunity for us to stay connected, particularly during this time of COVID when we were physically separated. It has been so odd. But with great power, as the saying goes, comes great responsibility. Right now, these social media companies are taking no responsibility over the platforms that they have created and are being used for these purposes. The attitudes of Australians are changing. When social media started, the attitude of Australians was that they were willing to accept a lot of downsides for this amazing connectivity that was created. But Australians are now realising—and in my electorate I talk to people who see it all the time—that they don't have to accept this anonymous rubbish that's being hosted by social media. They do not have to accept as a trade-off for connectivity that their kids can be groomed online and that it's so hard to police. They don't have to accept that people will say things on social media that they would never say to your face or act in a way that they would never act in real life.

Commercial television broadcasters operate according to the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, developed by the industry. But social media has no such code. Frankly, we need to move faster to level the playing field with social media companies. As the member for Mallee said, social media companies need to be regulated as publishers. If they host material on this platform then people need to be able to pursue damages against them, just like in the non-digital world. It's not that much to ask. It's just that the same rules that are in the real world should also apply in the digital world. It's not difficult. These social media companies have enormous resources. The opportunity is there where, if somebody sees anonymous content hosted that they feel is defamatory, harmful or something like that, they should be able to tell Facebook or one of these other social media giants, and there should be an expectation that, if they don't remove it within 24 or 48 hours, they are agreeing to publish it and they can be held responsible as a publisher for the negative effect that it has. They have that responsibility as traditional publishers.

The most worrying use of all social media is obviously in the context of the incitement of violence, child exploitation and child sexual abuse material. As a young dad, I'm obviously very passionate about preventing this. I recently visited the ACCCE centre in Brisbane, established by this government to counter child exploitation. One of the things that was raised with me by the incredibly dedicated individuals that are there trying to track down this material is the barrier that social media platforms create when trying to find, stop and prosecute these vile individuals. Did you know that Facebook and these other social media giants are objecting to one in every five lawful requests that our law agencies make to have access to individuals who are grooming or posting child exploitation material online? Just think about that: 20 per cent of lawful requests from our law agencies to these social media publishers to access the details of these people who are committing the most heinous crimes are rejected. What possible excuse could there be for that? It's simply not enough.

The Morrison government is acutely aware of this. It is doing an enormous amount in terms of Minister Fletcher's online safety bill and in terms of resourcing the eSafety Commissioner, which was never there before. But we have more to do, and we need to hold these social media companies to account as the publishers they are.

See this speech in context