Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. The recent conduct of Facebook Inc. has resulted in the company's improper interference with the free performance of my duties as a member of the Australian House of Representatives, which I believe is a contempt of parliament due to its obstructing or impeding me in the discharge of those duties. I seek precedence to move a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.

In seeking precedence to move this motion, I provide the following particulars. Firstly, I submit that, by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, there are two thresholds that I must meet to make a case of contempt of parliament: firstly, the conduct in question must directly or indirectly produce a result that obstructs or impedes a member of the House in the discharge of his duties; and, secondly, the conduct is intended or is likely to amount to an improper interference with the free performance of the member's duties. As per the provisions of section 5 of House of Representatives Practice, 'The Member's role' states that the primary duty of the member of parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents. It is self-evident that this requires free and frequent communication with constituents. Therefore, any conduct that obstructs or impedes a member's ability to communicate with constituents meets the first threshold of being in contempt.

Facebook platforms today are a major tool for all members of parliament to communicate with constituents. Today, virtually all politicians communicate extensively through social media, which is dominated by Facebook. According to an analysis published by Genroe, 77.7 per cent of Australians aged 16 to 64 used Facebook in December 2020. In fact, on the official webpage of the Australian parliament, aph.gov.au, when you go into the search section for senators and members, the search result brings up a member with a connect function. For most members this includes the Facebook logo—on the official Australian parliament webpage—with an embedded link to that member's Facebook page. Also on the official aph.gov.au website, each member and senator has a page with a drop-down menu. You can select (1) office details, (2) connect and (3) electoral details.

By clicking on the 'Connect' link, for most members, this again brings up the Facebook logo, with an embedded link to the member's Facebook page. A search for 'Craig Kelly' today on the official aph.gov.au website brings up the words, 'Connect with Craig Kelly' and underneath this there is the Facebook logo with an embedded link to my Facebook page, or what was my Facebook page. However, if a constituent clicks on the Facebook logo on my official parliamentary page to connect with me through Facebook, a message comes up which states: 'This page isn't available. The link you have followed may be broken or the page removed.' The conduct of removing this link has obstructed and/or impeded my ability to communicate with my constituents and my constituents' ability to communicate with me.

I've maintained a Facebook page as 'Craig Kelly MP' since shortly after first being elected in 2010. I use the platform to communicate directly with my constituents and for my constituents to communicate with me in the discharge of my duties. This includes posting such things as videos and transcripts of my speeches in parliament and other proceedings in parliament; my contributions to the national debate on political issues before parliament, in addition to local electorate matters; details of private member's bills that I was proposing to introduce to parliament; the work of parliamentary committees that I was a member of, including calling for public submissions for inquiries being undertaken by those committees; informing constituents of government grants and programs; research and data on issues before the parliament.

Importantly, the Facebook platform enables the above to be undertaken in real time, or near real time, with the ability of live broadcasts. In the language of an economist: 'There is no perfect substitute for Facebook. All other platforms are lesser communication tools.' Therefore, if a member is banned by Facebook, they are less able to discharge their duties compared to other parliamentary colleagues. The page that I have maintained has grown, with over 80,000 people liking that page and over 100,000 people following that page. Before being banned, I was averaging over one million interactions—that is, likes, comments and shares—per month, enabling me to fulsomely and vigorously represent the interests of my constituents.

The Facebook platform also includes a 'Comments' section in each thread, which enabled me to communicate back and forth with my constituents and to receive feedback. The Facebook page also has a separate Messenger service, within which constituents would be able to send me messages and I would reply back to them as part of my duties to communicate with the constituents of Hughes. I'd often receive 20 to 50 messages per day through this platform—definitely more than I would receive through regular mail.

The event that led up to my ban was that, on Monday 26 April, I received a text message from Facebook's Australian representative advising that my page had been banned. Shortly after, on the same day, I replied: 'Thank you for the advice. Is it possible to know what this alleged misinformation was, and is it possible to appeal against that?' To date, Facebook have not provided me with any particulars or any further information as to what they have unilaterally determined was so-called misinformation, and the period for seeking an appeal to Facebook against their ruling has now expired. Further, on 28 April, Facebook also issued a media release, which was widely reported by the ABC, which states, 'We don't allow anyone, including elected officials, to share misinformation about COVID-19 that could be'—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could just interrupt the member for Hughes. I'm reluctant to, but he's been speaking for quite a period of time. With a matter of privilege, the obligation is to set out the facts so that they can be considered, not to debate the matter with material that might be interesting, but the issue of privilege won't turn on it. I'm not sure how long he's planning to speak for, but it shouldn't be for very much longer. And, of course, he has the opportunity, as has been communicated to him, and is certainly there in the established practice, to table—and, indeed, I'd encourage him to table—any documentation that he considers to be supporting documentation, and then the matter can be considered. But, even with very, very serious matters of privilege, the speeches have not gone for this length of time. So, if there are any other pertinent facts, certainly raise those and table any documentation.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do so. I will table the documents that support those facts at the conclusion of my speech. The simple fact is that I have been black banned and deplatformed from the Facebook platforms. I am unable to communicate through their Messenger service, which means that constituents have actually sent messages to me that I don't know even exist today, and I'm unable to respond to them. It is also improper conduct, which I argue as well. I will leave it there. I'm in your hands for further directions. I seek leave to table the documents in support.

Leave granted.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those documents are tabled. I'll consider the matter in the normal way and report back to the House, but of course it won't be today.