Today Show with Sylvia Jeffreys

SYLVIA JEFFREYS, HOST:    Hardline free speech campaigners are this morning calling on Coalition frontbenchers to push back against Labor's draft digital duty of care laws, arguing changes to algorithms are a form of censorship. 

Joining us to discuss today's headlines, Minister for Employment Amanda Rishworth and Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie. Morning to you both, thanks for your time. Amanda, I'll go to you first. Your draft bill we understand will be released later today, so we'll know more soon. But will the government censor right-wing voices on social media?

AMANDA RISHWORTH, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS:    This is not about censorship. This is not about stopping voices online. This is a pretty simple proposition that I think most Australians agree with, and that is we know that whether it's social media companies or potentially other online platforms, their job is to push for engagement and make profit, and there isn't a responsibility to make sure that, for example, illegal content doesn’t make it into people's feeds, that young people aren't damaged by some of the content, particularly, for example, pushing content on eating disorders, or indeed grooming behaviour. What this is saying is that big tech's got to take more responsibility to stop that from happening, rather than whack-a-mole, which currently you have to make a complaint and then then it's got to be taken down. This is about tools and systems to make sure that the responsibilities are there for big tech and they actually enforce them. And that is a pretty simple concept. And I think most Australians, particularly parents, are very keen on this. They don't want to see, for example, social media or other big tech companies not taking responsibility for stopping things like grooming behaviour. I mean, this is an important concept and I think something most Australians will back.

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    Zoe, there appear to be fractures within the Coalition on this policy. Where do you stand? Would you support an opt-in or an opt-out model?

ZOE MCKENZIE, LIBERAL MP:    Sylvia, I don't think there are fractures. I think that's being blown up by the media. In fact, the Coalition has led on most of this reform. So we were the ones who first called for a ban for under-16 social media accounts, just because we'd got to the point where we realised too much harm was being done.

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    But where do you stand on algorithms?

ZOE MCKENZIE:    So in relation to algorithms, sorry, in relation to the actual report we did some time ago now, there's a substantive Coalition component to that, and we actually recommended action on recommender systems, on algorithms, and indeed on the duty of care. It is all spelt out there in great detail. People claim that algorithms are actually freedom of speech. They are not. They are force-fed speech. It is not what you are choosing to look at, it is what the platforms think will keep you there for longer. Bu the depth …

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    [Interrupts] So do you support the opt-out model, then?

ZOE MCKENZIE:    I would support a opt-out well, what I want first and foremost is transparency. I want forward …

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    [Interrupts] Oh, you almost said it. Would you support the opt-out model?

ZOE MCKENZIE:    Well, no, I'm happy to look at both of them, right? So the draft will be released later on today and I'm happy to look at both of them. But you have to realise this is force-fed algorithmic content. This is not 2007 Facebook or Instagram that Amanda and I would both remember quite well, where you followed your friends, you followed the topics you were interested in.

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    Why can't you say, would you support opt-out as a model?

ZOE MCKENZIE:    It depends on what they put forward today. I'm happy to look at opt-out and opt-in. So, in terms of having a choice, of what I call 2007 Facebook, which is just what you're interested in, you go find what you're interested in rather than being forced fed a flood of stuff you're not interested in. I'm all for that.

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    Okay, let's move along to Erin Patterson, the notorious mushroom killer in Victoria. She has been approved for taxpayer-funded Ozempic as she serves a life sentence behind bars. Amanda, is this an appropriate use of public funds?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    Well, look, firstly, I'd say I imagine this is quite distressing and upsetting to hear this news for family members that have been affected and friends and community members. Of course, the decision to do this is a decision of the Victorian government. And so I don't have all the information in front of me, but I can understand how this would be very distressing for a lot of people and quite confusing.

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    Zoe, as a Victorian, how concerned are you about Erin Paterson's issues with body image?

ZOE MCKENZIE:    Oh look, I hope that Erin's been getting advice about her health, right? I hope that what, in fact, people are trying to do here is prevent her development to get diabetes type 2, or, in fact, other health conditions that will ultimately cost the taxpayer more. So whilst on sort of prima facie I'd be concerned about taxpayers' funding what might be something for body image, if it's actually designed to protect her health, make sure she's ultimately not needing greater care at greater cost in the prison system, then I say let her have the drugs.

SYLVIA JEFFREYS:    Okay. Amanda and Zoe, great to have you on the program this morning. We appreciate your time. Thank you.