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

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Freedom of parliamentary proceedings

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

23 At the end of Part XXI

Add:

351A Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is a foreign campaigner; and

(b) the person is the provider of a large social media service; and

(c) the person, by communicating electoral matter, impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament.

Penalty: 100 penalty units.

(2) Without limiting when the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament if the provider:

(a) prohibits, restricts or prevents the posting of proceedings by a member; or

(b) if a member posts proceedings:

(i) removes the post (other than at the initiative of the member); or

(ii) restricts access to the post, including by means of shadow banning; or

(iii) encourages or requires the member to remove the post; or

(iv) victimises the member because of the post, including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the member or supressing posts by the member; or

(v) prohibits, restricts or prevents the reposting of the post by any person; or

(c) if an end user of the service reposts a post to which paragraph (b) applies:

(i) removes the repost (other than at the initiative of the end user); or

(ii) restricts access to the repost, including by means of shadow banning; or

(iii) encourages or requires the end user to remove the repost; or

(iv) victimises the end user because of the repost (including because of a statement included in the repost), including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the person or supressing posts by the end user.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the extent that it would otherwise infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.

(4) This section does not limit article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688.

Definitions

(5) In this section:

large social media service includes the following social media services:

(a) Facebook;

(b) Twitter;

(c) YouTube;

(d) Instagram;

(e) WeChat;

(f) TikTok.

member means a member of the House of Representatives or a senator.

posted has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021.

proceedings means proceedings in Parliament.

provider of a social media service has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021.

remove has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021.

repost a post means post on a social media service a post that previously been posted on that or another social media service.

The amendment I have moved is to protect the proceedings of this House from foreign interference. I'll go through the sections that are here:

(1) A person commits an offence if:

  (a) the person is a foreign campaigner; and

  (b) the person is the provider of a large social media service—

including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, WeChat and TikTok—

  (c) the person, by communicating electoral matter, impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament.

The wording of that—'impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament'—comes from the direct words of the Bill of Rights 1688, which ensured that debate in this chamber could be free, that freedom of speech reigned superior and that no-one, not even the King of England, could impeach what was said in this parliament. Yet we have a situation today where we have these large social media giants using their control of what is said in this parliament by threatening members of parliament with having their speeches made here deleted, de-platformed and censored. The proceedings of the Australian parliament must have priority over the so-called ideological positions of these large social media giants. Where they have such a position of influence across society, we cannot have these large social media giants holding the power to censor the proceedings of the Australian parliament and to de-platform elected members of the Australian parliament. To allow so undermines our democracy. Yet that is exactly what has happened.

I know I could be accused of self-interest here because of what has happened to speeches I have made. I have introduced bills in this parliament, such as the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passport Bill and posted my speech on the bill from start to finish on YouTube, but on YouTube, there is nothing in between the Speaker saying 'I give the call to the member for Hughes' and the end of my speech. My speeches have been censored and deleted from YouTube. This is a breach of the Bill of Rights of 1688, and we need to set out that this is specifically illegal because it interferes in Australia's democracy.

For members of this parliament, if you go to the official Australian parliamentary website, alongside your member's name, there are links to Twitter and Facebook so that you can contact a member of parliament. Yet we allow Twitter and Facebook to decide that some members of parliament are unworthy of having a Facebook page. We cannot have that situation in this parliament. This, again, is a violation of our democratic principles. It threatens our democracy. It is foreign interference in our electoral campaign. I, as a member of parliament, am banned from having a Facebook page for saying nothing other than the truth and for posting peer-reviewed studies—expert opinions of doctors that are now shown to be correct. We've even had Facebook's admission in a court case in the US that, when they say something is 'misleading', they don't mean that it's misleading; they now just mean that it's an 'alternative opinion'. The way that we are slandering people—saying they are saying something that is misleading—is contrary to freedom of speech. It destroys the principles of debate and open discussion, and we've seen the damage that it has done over the last 12 to 18 months, not only in this country, but around the world.

This section of my amendment provides that, without limiting when the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the parliament, the provider of a social media service does so if—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Hughes, would you like to continue?

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

Yes, I seek the call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be disagreed to and I call the honourable member for Hughes.

Examples would be if the provider prohibits, restricts or prevents the posting of proceedings by a member or, if a member posts proceedings, the provider removes the post, other than at the initiative of the member; restricts access to the post, by means of shadow banning; encourages or requires the member to remove the post; victimises the member because of the post, including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the member or supressing posts of the member; prohibits, restricts or prevents the reposting of any post by a person; or if the end user reposts a post to which the paragraph applies.

This amendment guarantees the freedom of speech in this parliament. It says that this parliament stands supreme above the tech giants. It goes to the traditions of the UK parliament back in the 1600s, where they said specifically that the parliament has primary place over the King of England. The King of England could not censor the proceedings of the parliament back in the 1600s. YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter should not be able to do the same thing today.

I hope that other members see the importance of this. As I've said, this is not just about me. This is about the integrity and the primacy of the Australian parliament and the Australian people over these social media giants to prevent them putting undue influence on our parliament and our Australian elections. I hope it has the support of many members of the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the House that the government will not be supporting this amendment. We have not had extensive notice of it, and, on a quick perusal, it's unclear exactly what its effect would be. I note that the effect of proposed section 351A(1) would require that a person, to be the subject of the provision, would need to be both the provider of a large media service and a foreign campaigner. I note that 'foreign campaigner' is not defined in the bill that's been provided, from the research I've been able to do in the available time. I note that 'foreign donor' is a defined term in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018, but I have not been able to identify a statutory meaning for 'foreign campaigner'. In any event, the government will not be supporting this, on a range of grounds, but principally because its effect is uncertain.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to, Mr Craig Kelly dissenting.

Bill agreed to.