|
March 15, 2024
The federal opposition is urging the Albanese government to respond to a high-level review into TikTok that it has been sitting on for a year, after a bill was passed by the United States’ lower house this week that could ban the popular video sharing platform.
Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil received a highly sensitive review into TikTok’s data harvesting and censorship practices from her department around March last year.
Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson told Capital Brief it was “deeply concerning” that the government has not responded to the review, adding the government “has an obligation to the Australian people to be open and transparent about the review’s findings and to respond accordingly”.
“The details of the review are no doubt sensitive, so if an unclassified version of the review cannot be released then at the very least Clare O’Neil should publicly address the findings of the review and explain what actions the government is taking as a result,” he said.
“They should also respond to the bipartisan report of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference Through Social media, which contains concrete recommendations to deal with this serious threat to our democracy.”
The Albanese government last year banned the app from Australian government-issued devices over security concerns, but it is yet to outline its policy response to broader concerns about the app.
A spokesperson for O’Neil did not comment on the status of the Home Affairs review but said the government had taken “strong action” in restricting access to TikTok on government-issued devices in line with advice from security agencies.
“We are monitoring the bill in the US and will take additional action if and when our agencies advise it is appropriate,” the spokesperson said.
Concerns about TikTok's handling of private information has increased over the past two years. In July 2022, the company admitted Australian user data could be accessed by staff in mainland China. Forbes also revealed in the same year that the app’s China-based owner, ByteDance, used TikTok to monitor journalists’ physical location using their IP addresses in an attempt to identify leakers within the company.
The Home Affairs review — which also included input from the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, which sit within the Department of Defence — was ordered by O'Neil in September 2022.
Capital Brief has been trying to access the review under Freedom of Information Laws since last July.
At the same time, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has launched an inquiry into claims that TikTok has breached Australian privacy laws through the widespread use of its data tracking tool embedded on Australian websites.
A spokesperson for the OIAC said “preliminary inquiries are continuing into TikTok”.
In a landslide vote, the US House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that would force Bytedance to divest from the application or face being banned. It is yet to pass the US Senate.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said Australia should now also consider requiring Bytedance, and other companies based in authoritarian states, to divest their controlling stakes in applications accessible in Australia.
"There are serious concerns about TikTok’s obligations to follow the directions of the Chinese government, especially when it comes to shaping the content delivered to users to sow disinformation and false narratives," he said.
"Moves to either render it safer by forcing divestment of an app like TikTok from its parent company based in an authoritarian country or, if that fails, banning it altogether, are best addressed collectively by likeminded countries.
"When we cannot agree on collective approaches, we should then act independently as we see necessary."
In a press briefing on Thursday, China foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said the US move puts it on the opposite side of the principles of fair competition and international trade rules.
“If the so-called ‘national security’ can be cited at will to bring down other countries’ competitive companies, there would be no fairness or justice to speak of,” he said.
