September 12, 2024
PETER STEFANOVIC: We're keeping a close watch on the streets of Melbourne this morning to see if those activists from yesterday returned. They have threatened to do so and police are ready for that. Thankfully, all appears calm so far today. So let's bring in the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, James Paterson from Canberra. James, as a Victorian thoughts on what happened in your capital yesterday.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Pete. Well, the scenes that we saw in Melbourne yesterday were totally and utterly unacceptable. Of course, people have a right to protest for any cause that they like, but that right to protest does not transform into a right to assault police officers, including apparently with acid, with horse manure, with rocks. Nor does it include the right to intimidate and harass people who are trying to peacefully assemble for a conference. What is the most extraordinary thing coming out of this is that we've got Greens MPs defending the protesters and blaming the police. I think it's very clear the protesters came with violent intent. They carried out that intent. The police did the best job that they could in managing that risk to the public.
STEFANOVIC: Yes. So it's day two at that convention today, James. And as you just saw from that live picture, thankfully, things are looking quiet, but police are ready for that. Now, when it comes to protesters, there doesn't appear to be a deterrent, despite changes to hate speech, despite a shift in those laws. What's still going wrong? I mean, are the courts not coming down hard enough? Do those laws in Victoria, in your view, need to be increased?
PATERSON: Since the 7th of October in this country, we have tolerated as a country extraordinary levels of lawlessness that we should never have tolerated. We have seen threats to violence, threats to kill, incitement to violence. We've seen breaches of hate symbols legislation left, right, and centre, and almost no one has been charged or arrested, let alone prosecuted and sentenced for those crimes. And frankly, it comes from the top. We need leadership from the Prime Minister down to demonstrate that the conduct that we've seen in this country, which has made many Australians, but particularly the Jewish community, feel unsafe in their own country, is unacceptable, and that we're going to deal with it and that we are going to enforce the law and that there are going to be consequences. Because until there are consequences there is no deterrent and we're going to see more of this behaviour.
STEFANOVIC: Okay. A couple of other items today, James. The Government keeping up its big tech momentum this week, now threatening big fines on social media giants if they fail to remove any miss or disinformation. There are carve outs for media, religious groups, even satire. Are you any more or less likely to support?
PATERSON: We haven't seen the legislation. We haven't been briefed on the legislation. It is apparently going to be introduced into the parliament today. We will look at it carefully. But if it in any way resembles the first draft of their misinformation laws, then we will of course oppose it. Our starting point is extreme scepticism. Let's remember that the first draft was opposed by the Human Rights Commission, civil liberties groups, religious groups, media organisations, the social media companies themselves. It was an utterly friendless bill. Even the ACMA chair in a public hearing distanced herself from the draft bill that she was supposed to administer. What worries me about the media reporting so far about this bill is that it includes apparently a requirement that the social media companies will determine what is true and what is false and will decide what is censored and what is not censored. That's a deeply disturbing thing because we know that in recent times got those things wrong on many occasions. Australians legitimately held political beliefs should not be censored by either the government, or by foreign social media platforms.
STEFANOVIC: Well, are there grey areas here, James? What actually is miss or disinformation, for example, is political spin deceptive and therefore misinformation?
PATERSON: Well, I think we're going to get ourselves into a very dangerous state of affairs if we allow, for example, during an election campaign, a American or Chinese headquartered social media platform decide what Australians can and cannot hear from political candidates and political parties. I think we always have to have a strong bias for free speech. Australians have the right to hear competing arguments and to make up their own minds. And censoring them and censoring their legitimate sincerely held beliefs is not the answer.
STEFANOVIC: Okay, quick one before we Go, James. Labor has reportedly invited a local Muslim community group with ties to a Sheikh who celebrated October 7th to apply for its share of millions in grant money in the name of social cohesion. Should this be allowed?
PATERSON: Tony Burke needs to step in and intervene with his junior minister, Julian Hill, and tell him he is wrong to have offered taxpayer's money to an organisation which includes an extremist preacher who on the 8th of October, just one day after Hamas's attack on Israel, said he was proud, said he was happy, said he was elated, said this is a day for celebration, said this is a day for victory. Let's remember that this is taxpayers money and that it's taxpayers money supposed to be going to promoting social cohesion. How would giving money to an organisation with an extremist preacher make social cohesion any better? In fact, I think it will make it worse. And Julian Hill has got it wrong. Tony Burke needs to intervene today and stop this from happening.
STEFANOVIC: James Paterson, good to chat. We'll talk to you soon.
ENDS
