July 5, 2023
ANDREW BOLT: Joining me is Liberal Senator James Paterson, the Opposition's Home Affairs spokesman who ran a government-wide audit that uncovered these amazing numbers. James Paterson, thanks for your time. But before we get to the drones, does it concern you that the son of Donald Trump, the son of a former US president, still didn't have a visa to come speak here six weeks after applying and only got it after the tour today was cancelled.
JAMES PATERSON: Andrew, the character provisions of the Migration Act are intended to be used to protect Australians from dangerous people who, for example, have been previously convicted of serious crimes against individuals, violent crimes or drug trafficking and they have an appropriate purpose within the Act to be used for that reason. The advocacy of Troy Bramston and others that it should be used in this instance I think did not stack up because its purpose is not to exclude people on a political basis or an ideological basis. People with a diverse range of political views are perfectly entitled to come to Australia as long as they intend to propagate them in a peaceful way. And I've not seen any evidence to the contrary about Mr Trump Junior's planned visit to Australia. I saw your comments before that the visa was issued today. Only the Department of Home Affairs can explain why it took as long as it did to consider it. It may be they were going through their normal processes, but that's up to them to justify.
BOLT: Seriously, months and months, like a couple of months? With Barack Obama, I think, they just rushed right through. Here's the golden lane for you, sir. Donald Trump Jnr? Well, you've got to wait. But to the Chinese-made drones that government agencies and the army have bought. How serious is this? I mean, could China really use our own drones to spy on us?
PATERSON: In October last year, the US government decided that the Pentagon and the US military, even with all of its power and all of this capability, could not safely operate these drones and they decided to ban them. They also sanctioned them because they've been involved in the oppression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and human rights abuses against them. So, if they can't safely operate them like then I doubt very much that the Australian Defence Force or the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Border Force could safely operate them either. And that's why I do welcome the fact that they have grounded their flights, although I note that they only did so after I launched questions on notice about them. They did not do them after the United States did so last year and that is concerning. But what is even more concerning is that they are right across the federal public service. And as you said in your opening, more than 3,000 of these devices and every single one of them poses a cyber security risk if they're Internet connected or if they're connected to the internal networks of the departments. These are devices that, by their very nature collect a lot of data and sometimes, depending on where that is used or how it is accessed, that can be very sensitive data. And it's just not a risk that I think the Australian Government should permit and should allow.
BOLT: It's extraordinary to do that many that naively. But talking about things authoritarian, talking also about free speech. James, I was pleased to see your comments this week attacking the Albanese Government's plans for its new bill to force internet platforms like Twitter and Facebook to censor posts that the government or its agencies claims is misinformation. Now, I was wondering when I read that why the Liberals hadn't actually said much until very recently about this outrageous idea. But then I found, wait a minute, it was actually the Morrison government considering this in the first place. How could the Liberals have backed an attack like this on free speech?
PATERSON: Well Andrew, disinformation is a serious problem. There are authoritarian states right now who are trying to weaponise social media platforms against liberal democracies like Australia, by dividing us internally, by pumping our political systems full of disinformation. They use it on Western headquartered social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, but also authoritarian headquartered social media platforms like TikTok and WeChat. And we do have to deal with that problem. But my view is that censorship is not the way to deal with this problem. Transparency is the way to deal with this problem. If there are foreign governments who are creating coordinated, inauthentic accounts to try and game the algorithm of a social media platform, well, that should be made obvious to the users of that platform. If they are representing the interests of a foreign state, if they are acting for a foreign state media organisation, for example, then users of the platform deserve to know that information and it should be mandated that that is revealed to users. I don't think empowering or encouraging or forcing social media platforms to engage in even more censorship than they already do is a good idea because we know, in just the last few years, the things that were once regarded as misinformation have subsequently turned out to be credible...
BOLT: I know, I know… that's a point James. Again and again you have to insist that the best weapon against bad speech is more speech, not censorship, because, as you say, the definition of misinformation can be manipulated by government and can actually be flat out wrong. James Paterson, thank you so much indeed for your time. Really appreciate it.
ENDS
