TOM CONNELL, HOST: Here in Australia, it's the last day you can put in a submission, from the members of the public to the government's Misinformation Bill, which has been generating plenty of headlines. Joining me now is the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, the man who really calls the shots, Patrick Gorman, and former Liberal MP in New South Wales, Liberal Party President Jason Falinski; thanks both for your time. Patrick didn't correct me, so he obviously agrees with that.
Misinformation Bill. I might start with you on this, Jason; you might give me some ammunition for Patrick, I sense. There's a few people liberal, small l and big L concerned with this. This is something a lot of people are concerned about. Some of the stuff that's put out there on Facebook is, frankly, wild and inaccurate. Is it possible to legislate for it? I guess that is the question.
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MP AND LIBERAL PARTY PRESIDENT: No, is the answer, Tom, and I noticed that Patrick's not correcting you because it's almost like he's as arrogant as a Brisbane Lions supporter on the Monday after a Grand Final. I don't know what's going on there, but no, look, you know, in the history of the world, the greatest amount of misinformation and disinformation has always been perpetrated by governments, not by citizens. And you should always be very, very scared when governments tell you that they're going to fix a problem like this. This is pretty serious, and what is most serious about it is, in fact, all the institutions that should be guarding us against this, like the legal profession, are just falling into line because they see rivers of gold from this legislation, and it's very serious, and I hope people in Canberra take it seriously.
CONNELL: Yeah, we're not arrogant. I will just say this is a bipartisan program. So, commiserations to you Swans supporters and for the Lions, I hope you soaked it up. How good were the pubs in Fitzroy on Saturday night. I didn't start the mention of this, but Jason gave me a window. Patrick, on to the serious business of this Bill. It's difficult, isn't it? There's going to be subjectivity in a lot of posts. There's going to be, you know, people now, flagging stuff, and somehow, there has to be an arbiter for the truth. You can see how that's pretty problematic, surely?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, Tom, you seem to be able to define the truth on your panel. So if you can do it, I'm sure the smart people at the Australian Communications and Media Authority can do it. We have a range of regulations for broadcast, television, and radio - I don't see why the social media giants shouldn't have some level of scrutiny applied to them. I think it's quite reasonable that you have the government acting in this area. There is huge community concern about people not feeling like they know whether what they're seeing online is or isn't true, whether they are receiving disinformation or misinformation. It's entirely appropriate the government acts in this area, and obviously we've seen today, just as Jason foreshadowed, that the Coalition doesn't want to support this Bill. Now, I think that's pretty disappointing. We are going through a consultation process at the moment. I would have thought that it was better to actually go through that process to make sure that we can see how this Bill would benefit Australians because that's what I believe it will do. It will mean that people are more will mean that people are more confident when they're reading news, reading information wherever it be, whether it be on a standard news platform or a social media platform. That's what people want.
CONNELL: I thought one of the interesting contributions on this; he's put in public submission, was Nick Coatsworth, who used to be a health bureaucrat in the government, who said some of the things that people put out there during COVID that would have been banned have turned out to be true. Isn't that a great example of why doing this is just really hard?
GORMAN: I haven't read that particular submission, and I -
FALINSKI: Oh, don't worry. Soon, it'll be banned.
CONNELL: He was a senior health bureaucrat, yeah, you know, stuff for example like when people said, 'Oh, the vaccine doesn't appear to stop the spread,' would have been labelled as wrong, false, misleading turned out to be true.
GORMAN: Oh, look well, bureaucrats, or in this case, former bureaucrats, often have a range of different opinions. That's nothing new. It's the government's job and the parliament's job to decide what to legislate -
FALINSKI: That's the point. No, it's not.
GORMAN: Yes, it is. It's the Parliament's job to legislate.
FALINSKI: This is really Orwellian.
GORMAN: You can't disagree with me on this, Jason.
FALINSKI: No, no, no, it is not the Parliament's job - Patrick, sorry, it is not the parliament's job to decide what truth is. I mean, I just feel like sending every member of the Labor Party a copy of John Stuart Mill's essay on free speech. The whole point was it wasn't meant to stop people from lying. It was to allow people to test what the truth is. And this is Orwellian. What are you guys proposing? I don't understand why you think it's okay. And I go back to what I said before. Where are all the lawyers that are meant to uphold the, you know, the right to free speech? Where are they? They have fallen into line -
GORMAN: Jason, you want to send in the lawyers. I don't know if that's always the best solution, but if you want to, just start sending lawyers left, right and centre.
FALINSKI: You and I agree on that.
FALINSKI: Too many lawyers in my family. So, I'll duck that question. Not that anyone was asking me. But anyway, Jason, what about Barnaby Joyce? One of the things within this Bill is you can't do something or say something that's wrong, that might damage the economy. Do his warnings of exploding Chinese solar panels and hot water systems might fall foul of that? Is he going a bit off-script here? The former Deputy PM.
FALINSKI: Well, look, I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about, Tom. We would be denied the humour of Barnaby Joyce and the evocative imagery that he can come up with every once in a while. I mean, you know, this is why this Bill is so bad. I mean, the whole idea of giving public servants and left-wing politicians the right to tell me what is true and untrue. I tell you what, this makes me more nervous than a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
CONNELL: I feel like Barnaby Joyce is on the program all of a sudden. That's evocative.
FALINSKI: Don't worry, that'll be banned soon.
CONNELL: Yeah. No, no. All right. What did you think of Barnaby on solar panels? - Well, could that fall foul of this law if suddenly there's no confidence, I don't know hot water systems and solar power, or EVs I should say I don't know what would apply to EVs, by the way, and not normal cars they have all got computer chips in them. Would this damage the economy and fall foul of this law, Patrick?
GORMAN: Oh, look, I think we're trying to make sense of Barnaby Joyce while talking about serious legislation and trying to do those two things at once is always difficult, and even Jason knows that, having sat in the Coalition party room with him. When it comes down to Barnaby Joyce, it was about a month or so ago that he was sort of saying ballot papers are bullets, which was a pretty weird thing to be saying. Now he's saying batteries are bullets. It's another strange thing for Barnaby Joyce to be saying. What we know, though, is that Australia does need to be able to manufacture more of these assets here in Australia, including batteries. We have put into Parliament the Future Made in Australia plan that includes $500 million for batteries made here in Australia. Barnaby Joyce voted against that. He's very good at finding problems. He's always very reluctant to back a solution.
CONNELL: Now I've got you here. I've got you as the authority of the government, Patrick, help us out. Help me and Jason out.
GORMAN: Okay, I'll help you out - I did back the Lions on the weekend, Tom, so I was with you. I'm not always with you, but I was with you on that.
CONNELL: Now, if anyone's watching, I'm not seeking this. It's great to talk about the game. We'll do it in depth, maybe later on. Negative gearing or Capital Gains Tax. Patrick, is this something genuinely on the table for Labor in terms of reform for investment properties?
GORMAN: It's not government policy. Tom, you've heard everyone say that.
CONNELL: To different levels, could it be government policy at the next election? Is there a possibility of that?
GORMAN: Our plan is very clear -
CONNELL: It was a quiet no. Is that an emphatic no?
GORMAN: Get Help to Buy through the Senate. Help to Buy is an excellent program to help 40,000 people a year into their own homes; Jason tells us time and time again, 'Get people into their own home.' I agree. Let's get that done.
CONNELL: You might get the Bill through with the Greens if you make changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Is there any possibility that you'll take that to the next election?
GORMAN: There are very good reasons - that we all know - as to why the Greens never seek to form government, nor do they ever write government policy. The Greens Party have lots of solutions, some of them unconstitutional, some of them unworkable, some of them unbelievable -
FALINSKI: All of them.
GORMAN: Agreed.
CONNELL: I'm going to weigh in before you agree too much. I've got a quick one for each of you - Jason, you're open to -
FALINSKI: Tom, that sounded like a Stage 3 no, by the way.
CONNELL: Well, yeah, I let our viewers decide that. Would you look at whatever modelling comes out on this, you'll look at it with an open mind? A few of your colleagues, Tim Wilson, used to say, we could make changes here, amongst other changes with housing.
FALINSKI: Yeah, sure. Tom, as you know, I had a look at the modelling two, two and a half years ago, and it's pretty emphatic. If you want to get rid of negative gearing, then all you're doing is supporting the union-backed industry superfunds, which would still be able to basically write off any of their losses against their rental income, but ordinary, hardworking Australians wouldn't be able to do it. This isn't about making housing more affordable. This is just about benefiting the union industry funds.
CONNELL: Patrick, very quickly, here is the serious story over the weekend: the Hezbollah flag saw a protest in Australia. Is this something that needs to be treated with the utmost seriousness?
GORMAN: Of course. Of course, it does. It's very concerning those protests, and I'd note that the Minister for Immigration was out very quickly afterwards, saying that there'll be no hesitation in cancelling visas. Equally, when these sorts of events happen, they raise the attention of our security agencies. They get right on it. That's exactly what they're doing now, including the Australian Federal Police.
CONNELL: Patrick, thank you. Jason, thank you. Sorry, Sophie, for taking too long. I'll see you two again soon.