August 29, 2023
SHARRI MARKSON: Let's bring in now Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, James Paterson. Great to see you, James. Thanks for your time. Look, you wrote to Meta, the owners of Facebook, outlining your serious concerns about their censorship of content relating to the Voice. What did you argue in your letter?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, thanks for having me, Sharri. That's right. Last week I wrote to Meta because I thought the fact check by the RMIT FactLab against the Peta Credlin editorial on the length of the Uluru Statement was just the latest in a long line of egregiously biased and partisan fact checks undertaken by the RMIT FactLab. And it was contrary to evidence that Facebook gave to me during the committee inquiry into foreign interference through social media where they said they had learned the lesson of their excessive censorship during the pandemic period, and they wouldn't be doing so again and that they would have a bias for more free speech and freedom debate in the context of the upcoming referendum. So I was very concerned by this latest fact check and I wrote to them last week. They replied to me today and promised that they would without any further delay, end the relationship that they have with RMIT and I really welcome that. Because in my opinion, RMIT FactLab has been acting like activists and partisans, not like independent fact checkers. And we can't rely on any of the fact checks they've done during the Voice debate, which, as you pointed out in your opening, have been egregiously biased against the No side with 17 fact checks of the No side versus none for the Yes side. I think that shows exactly where they're coming from.
MARKSON: I mean, in this instance, the Sky News investigation led by Jack Houghton was able to uncover exactly who the fact checkers are behind the RMIT FactLab. We were able
to see what they were sharing. You call them activists. But in many instances, these fact checkers that the social media companies rely on are completely anonymous. You know, how difficult is it to determine whether something is misinformation because a lot of what's been censored, quite frankly, is not false or misinformation at all?
PATERSON: Sharri, that work that your colleague Jack Houghton did was outstanding because it is very difficult to find and to prove that the people who are putting themselves up to be independent and impartial fact checkers are actually people who have a very strong view of their own, and they are entitled as Australian citizens to have whatever they want on the Voice referendum and to vote however they have do. But they shouldn't hold themselves out to be independent and unbiased and to be arbiters of fact if they themselves have a strong perspective which like they clearly do. And if these people have gone to the lengths of sharing on social media of pro-Yes propaganda, well then they are clearly not fit to be presiding over an independent fact checking process. And it's been a very clear failure internally at RMIT University to allow this to continue. Let's not forget that the relationship between Meta and RMIT FactLab is not the only one, because of course RMIT FactLab also had a relationship with the ABC and has been involved in extensive fact checking on behalf of the ABC. Well, I would like the ABC to now review their relationship with RMIT FactLab in light of Meta's decision that the company relied upon to be unbiased and impartial, and in light of the fact that their supposed accreditation with the international fact checking bodies have lapsed and are no longer current. I mean, that is one of the things they hold out to be evidence of their impartiality and their professionalism and it doesn't exist.
MARKSON: Yeah. And ABC seems to be distancing itself from RMIT Fact Lab, but we still need to get to the bottom of that relationship. James, what about the foreign interference angle? I mean, you note that Facebook is owned by a foreign company. This debate is ultimately a change to the Australian Constitution and whether Australians support that. Tell me about that angle of foreign interference.
PATERSON: What Australians are going to be asked to do in about six weeks’ time is to vote on the most radical change proposed to our Constitution since Federation. Now whatever your view on the merits of that, it is a matter for Australians. Australians should be free to debate, they shouldn't be restricted by anyone from engaging in that debate. And they certainly shouldn't be restricted by anyone who is foreign headquartered, a foreign company, determining what we can and can't say in this debate. I was particularly troubled by that aspect. Now, this isn't foreign interference in the same way that foreign interference by the Chinese government or the Putin regime constitutes foreign interference. But it does put companies like Meta and Twitter and YouTube and all the other social media platforms at great risk of having to make difficult decisions about what are the permissible bounds of public debate in a liberal democracy like Australia. That is not their role. That is not the remit. And they shouldn't just outsource that to activists, Left wing fact checkers and say they're not making these decisions. If they're slapping the label on, if they're censoring the content, as even Paul Barry at the ABC has acknowledged, then they are taking responsibility for those decisions and they must.
MARKSON: So, are you saying that the foreign interference legislation could apply to these social media companies?
PATERSON: I don't think it would unless it was directed by a foreign government. If the government of which these companies are headquartered was directing them to engage in this activity, it could potentially enliven the provisions of our foreign interference and influence schemes. But if it's just private companies acting privately, which is what I believe it is in this instance, then there's no evidence that that would breach those laws. But it's a principle, a principle that a Silicon Valley tech company shouldn't be deciding for Australians what we can hear, what we can say and what we can read about our own Voice referendum and whether it is Peta Credlin or anyone else at Sky News, they should be able to reach their audiences without being interfered with by these platforms or their so-called independent fact checkers.
MARKSON: James Paterson, just very quickly before you go, the former ACT Chief Prosecutor, Shane Drumgold is reportedly taking legal action against the Sofronoff Board of Inquiry. According to media reports this afternoon, he's asking the court to quash the damning findings that have been made against him, arguing that these conclusions are legally unreasonable and accusing the inquiry of bias. What do you make of this?
PATERSON: Well Mr Drumgold, like any other Australian, is entitled to take the legal action available to him if he believes that that's necessary. The only thing I'd note Sharri is that was Mr Drumgold's letter originally that called the Sofronoff inquiry to be brought into being and he might be careful what he wishes for given how that went last time.
MARKSON: Alright, Senator James Paterson, thank you very much for joining me now.
ENDS
