Social services minister says big tech companies give ideology of hatred a ‘safe space to breed’ and government should look at calls for greater powers

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The Coalition minister Christian Porter has supported calls by the British prime minister to further regulate the internet in order to tackle the threat of terrorism and radicalisation.

Porter, the social services minister, was speaking on ABC’s Q&A program, which addressed calls by Theresa May for increased anti-terrorism powers, such as preventative detention and greater regulation of internet-based radicalisation after the latest London terrorist attacks.

The panel included three federal politicians – Porter, the Labor MP Anthony Albanese and the Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm – as well as La Trobe University professor Judith Brett and the actor and disability advocate Kiruna Stamell.

Porter said May had made “a very valid point” about the voluntary carriage of hatred on the internet by services and sites such as Google and Twitter.



“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space to breed but that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide,” May said in London.

The Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, agreed and said there was too much tolerance of online extremist material and cooperation was needed from the tech companies.

Outcry as Pauline Hanson turns UK police warning into anti-Islam meme Read more

“If you operate a carriage service, surely you must bear some responsibility – at least at an ethical level – to ensure you’re not carrying that sort of hatred over your communication network,” Porter said on Monday night.

He said governments could work with internet companies and it was something that “needed to be developed further”. Porter said the government would give “due consideration” to calls for greater preemptive powers but with caution regarding personal freedoms.

Asked if Labor would support sweeping new powers like those called for by May, Albanese said the opposition wouldn’t make policy on the run and the two parties were working successfully in a bipartisan way. He said the struggle against totalitarian fascism wasn’t won by “completely giving up your freedoms”.

Leyonhjelm urged against curtailing freedoms in the name of protection and said he was uncomfortable with control orders but preferred them to preventative detention orders.

“The thing is, of course, these terrorists, Salafists and Wahhabists from the Sunni side of Islam … they want to destroy our freedoms,” he said. “If we give them up, [they have] won, and if we do it to ourselves that’s doubly bad.”

Brett, an emeritus professor of politics, urged people to accept that authorities would not always successfully stop attacks.

“It’s really extremely difficult and we mustn’t blame them when attacks happen,” she said.

It's way past time to speak truth to climate arguments this stupid | Lenore Taylor Read more

The panel also discussed US president Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord.

Leyonhjelm said he agreed with Trump and the deal would shut down Australian industry and raise electricity prices.

Porter said the government had committed to stay in and it was “absolutely still a worthwhile global process”.

Albanese said Leyonhjelm’s idea that the accord damaged Australia’s economy was “frankly wrong”. He said other market-based mechanisms were needed to drive change, including an emissions intensity scheme.

Separately, Porter was quizzed on the NDIS and difficulties for people dealing with it.

“How will this system resist perpetuating inequalities when those least well off are least able to advocate for themselves?” a questioner, who had two daughters signed up to the scheme, asked.



The questioner said she believed in the system and its premise but it was “a very hard fight to get what was needed” for her daughters.

“I see people who don’t have strong advocates and their needs are less met than my children’s.”

Porter said the scale of the enterprise was immense and a “once in a generation” logistical feat, and the task was to ensure planning and reviews of plans were “consistently high across Australia”.

He said he didn’t have any “statistical information” to support or refute the suggestion that those who were or had better advocates got a better result.

Stamell said such bureaucratic systems were always difficult. “One thing Australia has got in its favour rather than the UK system, which has been damaged recently by politics and political agendas, is because it’s a bit of a new system it can be built better,” she said.

Bill Shorten says opposing Medicare levy rise to pay for NDIS a 'values decision' Read more

Asked about the government’s controversial plan to drug test welfare recipients and put people on income management if they were found to be using drugs, Albanese said he was concerned about the motive behind the policy.

“This came from nowhere and this government does have bit of a track record of vilification of people receiving welfare benefits and I’m a bit concerned this is the latest instalment of that.”

He said Labor would look at the detail of the proposal.

The minister in charge of the policy, Porter, said it was about improving people’s lives and Department of Human Services intervention with treatment plans would assist people found to be using drugs, and that people weren’t currently given assistance.

“The idea that drug use doesn’t create a barrier to drug use is utter nonsense,” he said.

Albanese said: “There’s a bit of drug use in the eastern suburbs among employed people in the city.”

Stamell suggested drug-testing politicians. Porter said that decision wasn’t up to him.