Debate on Government Control of Information

For example, critics like Michael Shellenberger,

you'd be aware, and others say

that it will give a government the power to control the flow of information.

The power, for example, to effectively spread propaganda.

I know you say that's not the intent, but I'm wondering if you could address

those

concerns explicitly of why this could not be used in that way,

and why those powers would need to exist if that is a capability.

Well, there is nowhere in the bill that gives the government, and

by the government, in this instance, the independent regulator, that power.

It's just not there.

Does it prevent that from happening?

Well, you can see in the section introduced,

there is, there is nothing in what

you've just set out there as a worst-case scenario that is in the bill.

That sock puppet power says that there aren't limitations

around how that can be used in the bill.

Yeah. Uh, looking at the eSafety Commissioner 'cause

the, the look that she's

giving you, I don't accept the premise.

I, I do not accept the premise of this

argument.

I don't think the eSafety Commissioner or I accept that that is

something that could happen as a result of the way that the bill has been drafted

by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Um, yes, these people claim to know what

is deep within my heart

better than myself or, or the government or the eSafety

Commission or the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

That's their right, and they will cont- they will still have the right to

make those points online after a digital duty of care is

legislated.

Would you just say in the bill they can't be used for those purposes, government

propaganda and so forth?

It can't.

In a worst-case scenario.

It can't.

The worst person you imagine gets the power of, of the eSafety Commissioner one

day, for example.

It cannot.

I don't know how to be more emphatic. It, it doesn't exist. It is not possible.

Thank you.

All right.

You're welcome.

Nick Newling from the Sydney-