Communications Minister Anika Wells has rejected claims that Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation would censor political speech, but the Coalition has now confirmed it will not support the draft bill in its current form.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor said the exposure draft was “unacceptable” because he believed it would give the communications minister and government too much discretion over the definition of harm that online platforms would have to address.

“This exposure draft, this bill, is unacceptable in its current form because the reality is it’s providing a blank cheque for political censorship to the minister, to the government,” Taylor said.

Taylor was speaking alongside Nationals leader Matt Canavan and shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson. The Coalition has argued that the government has too much power to broaden the categories of harm covered by the proposed rules, while the government has said any changes could be rejected by the Senate.

Canavan said he did not want a government to have what he described as a “virtual iron dome” to protect itself from public feedback, arguing that politicians should not be given the power to regulate what people can say and read online.

“The Labor party, in recent weeks, has blamed an election loss in Western Australia on social media and so the people, the same people that are complaining they’re losing elections, losing political debates based on what is said on social media, can’t be given the power then to regulate what you can say and read online,” Canavan said.

Wells said political misinformation would not be banned under the proposed rules and argued that the legislation is focused on the systems and risks created by online platforms rather than the content users choose to view.

“This is not about the content. Your right to be wrong on the internet remains preserved in the Digital Duty of Care,” Wells said in an interview with News24.

She said someone who believed the moon landing was fake would still be able to access material supporting that view.

The Coalition has accused the Labor government of using the proposed legislation to restrict free speech and limit criticism of the government.

Wells rejected that argument, saying the proposed duty would require online services to identify risks on their platforms and take steps to mitigate them.

She said the exposure draft was aimed at establishing basic safety standards online, including addressing illegal material for adults and psychosocial harms affecting children.

The government has opened the exposure draft for consultation and plans to introduce the legislation to parliament in October.

Nationals leader Matt Canavan has separately called for the government to go back to the drawing board and start again, saying there is not enough trust in the process.

Canavan, a vocal critic of the proposed laws, said he did not trust big technology companies but trusted the Labor Party “a lot less”. He argued that giving the Communications Minister powers to broaden the scope of harms covered by the legislation should be a “non-starter” because of concerns about freedom of speech and government power.

There are differing views within the Nationals on the legislation, with some members more supportive of the proposed reforms than Canavan.

Canavan’s concerns centre in part on the ministerial power to broaden the categories of harm that platforms would have to protect adults and children from. The government says the bill is focused on reducing foreseeable online harms and giving users greater control over social media feeds.

Sources: The Guardian and ABC News

By Australia By Aussie