0:00

Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. With the

0:02

price of just about everything going up during

0:04

inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down.

0:07

So to help us, we brought in a reverse

0:10

auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint

0:12

Mobile unlimited, premium wireless. How did you get

0:14

30-30? How did you get 30-30? How

0:16

did you get 30-30? How did you get 30-40? You bet you get

0:18

20-20, you bet you get 15-15, 15-15, just 15 bucks a month. Sold!

0:23

$45 up front for three months plus taxes and fees. Promote

0:25

for new customers for limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes

0:27

per month. Slows. How

0:30

can a people-first approach to higher

0:33

education transformation improve success? An EY

0:35

report suggests that taking emotional and

0:37

psychological factors into account is just

0:40

as important as the technology. Six

0:43

factors drive this human-centered approach.

0:45

Leadership. Inspiration. Care.

0:47

Empowerment. Investment. And collaboration. Get these

0:49

rights and they can more than

0:52

double an organization's chance of transformation

0:54

success. Learn more about

0:56

people-first transformation at theguardian.com/transforming higher

0:58

education. This message was paid

1:01

for by EY. Every

1:13

time parliaments have acted on trying

1:15

to regulate, particularly in the technology

1:17

space, it quickly gets out

1:19

of date because how fast the world

1:22

transitions. And that's not an

1:24

excuse for not doing anything. Hi,

1:27

I'm Karen Middleton, Guardian Australia's political

1:29

editor, coming to you from the

1:31

lands of the Ngunnawal and Nambri

1:33

peoples. Today on the

1:35

Australian Politics Podcast, I'm speaking with

1:37

Greens Senator for South Australia Sarah

1:39

Hanson Young. This week

1:42

it's the government versus Elon Musk, owner

1:44

of the social media platform X. Free

1:47

speech, social responsibility and a

1:49

legal showdown over violent content

1:51

online. There are demands

1:54

for better regulation, but can Australia be

1:56

the world's internet police? A

1:58

series of high profile. The Zebra new

2:01

the focus on violence against women

2:03

with rallies around the country and

2:05

the makers of must share for

2:07

claiming green credentials for using bio.

2:09

may say guess in a new

2:11

season greenwashing would just be energy

2:13

transition. Let's see what the center

2:15

some bags of at all. Senator

2:19

has a young thanks for joining us

2:21

on the Australian Politics podcast know it's

2:23

great to they had Karen think he

2:26

there's a lot this thing going on

2:28

this wage that Senor Bailey Wix politically

2:30

speaking at the Can we start with

2:33

social media and the big thought were

2:35

having with a lot mask we say

2:37

to him resisting the demands Israeli government

2:40

has been making particularly about taking down

2:42

a violent video of an incident that

2:44

occurred in Sydney a week or saw

2:47

a guy he's pushing back. And

2:49

saying. You know you can't

2:51

police the entire world Internet and we

2:53

saw Peter Dutton make a similar point in

2:55

the last few days. Did I have a

2:58

point? Are we trying to sort of hold

3:00

back? The I said that we trying to

3:02

police the whole world and is that

3:04

just unrealistic? Will

3:06

get Spain. Quite an interesting debate

3:08

to say explode at last week I

3:11

think. Am now. People

3:13

are rightly frustrated. And angry

3:15

that. A big tech tycoon

3:17

like Elon Musk can ask is

3:19

like he can pick and choose

3:21

them. call your in starling ministers

3:23

than an independent regulated name and

3:26

effectively games and this time government

3:28

the middle finger. I mean I

3:30

think this is probably more about

3:32

is a guy them and much

3:34

shell. However, It's. Has

3:36

created and brought to the from

3:39

abroad a conversation and conversation we

3:41

really need have because so far

3:43

too long seek tech platforms particularly

3:45

in the social media sites have

3:48

grown and grown crime They have

3:50

millions of users now. with

3:53

very little is known regulation and

3:55

that's the key point and the

3:57

tech companies ride around the world

4:00

know this. They know governments

4:02

are increasingly frustrated. There have

4:04

been changes elsewhere around the world.

4:06

Australia has implemented some here. The

4:09

EU has recently introduced a

4:11

digital act that starts

4:14

to regulate social media companies.

4:16

So the big tech tokens

4:18

know that their social

4:20

license is wearing thin with the community and

4:23

governments are being forced to act. What we've

4:25

seen this week is just one tiny part,

4:27

but it misses the broader problem I think

4:29

and the bigger problem. That is what

4:32

is the business model of these companies because

4:35

that's what they're actually into. That's what

4:37

they're worried about protecting. That's

4:40

what they don't want government playing with.

4:43

To be perfectly blunt, it's that

4:45

business model that is actually driving

4:47

the biggest risk and

4:49

this kind of viral nature

4:51

of these horrible posts. So

4:54

are you suggesting that companies like X,

4:57

which is what Lelan Musk is the

4:59

head of or other platforms, are using

5:01

the free speech argument to mask what

5:04

is just a profit-making enterprise? Absolutely.

5:07

The free search argument

5:10

is a bit of a red herring, frankly.

5:12

What they don't want is governments regulating

5:15

how they use algorithms, how

5:17

they use individual users' data.

5:19

These companies are effectively

5:22

advertising companies. It's not

5:24

that we need to regulate

5:26

individual conversations between users. It's

5:28

the data from the users that the company

5:30

sells, that Facebook or

5:32

Twitter or Google sells, to

5:35

make extraordinary profits, billions and

5:37

billions of dollars, and

5:39

then the amplification of

5:41

particular views through those algorithms.

5:44

Free speech and freedom of

5:46

accession is a really important principle.

5:50

You and I can have a conversation and express our

5:52

views to each other. They may

5:54

be different. That's not what we're

5:56

talking about when we're talking about regulating

5:58

social media. We're saying. The things

6:00

that are amplified. The. Views

6:03

that are amplified and cause harm

6:05

is watch. Is that amplification that

6:07

needs to be regulated a shower

6:09

driven at to go viral is

6:12

that The algorithm question is that's

6:14

is that the first. Step then that

6:16

we need to. We need. To force them

6:18

to make public how their algorithms work. Yes,

6:21

I mean that the extraordinary thing about

6:23

this is the real driver of their

6:25

business model is kept secret. There

6:27

is no transparency and used

6:29

against and tool and each

6:31

they. Use it or isn't isn't

6:34

protection around the use of children,

6:36

dasa and algorithms being. Used to

6:38

push content in front of the children or. Minus

6:40

I know the coalition have been

6:43

talking about in a in enforcement

6:45

roads that mine is not using

6:47

social media I think I'm wary

6:49

of than unconfirmed and alongside experts

6:51

that that's. Not really the

6:54

size. It's while protecting children.

6:56

What would be safer is

6:58

to restrict social media companies

7:00

using the daughter of mine

7:02

is against the interests. Of

7:04

minors by forcing them into

7:06

these rabbit holes and algorithmic

7:08

patents. So. He isn't the

7:11

case that we've been doing civic piecemeal

7:13

with. You have been looking at particular

7:15

S aspects so of these issues as

7:17

I said say one cohort all you

7:20

know, one piece of legislation and not

7:22

taking. A a whole of government or

7:24

all of nice and view. Yes,

7:26

I think this is a big part

7:28

of the problem and the take that

7:30

the be a safety commissioner and the

7:33

take down rose is is is actually

7:35

very narrow path and it's not the

7:37

key driver of the issue. Tedious this

7:39

business model it's the amplification be used

7:41

as an individual dasa as. a

7:44

happy since to the broader fear fear

7:46

of media regulation that i'm and insisted

7:48

to turn and when i listen to

7:50

members of the community of the last

7:52

week as it's debate has raged in

7:54

relation to a lot mosques and who's

7:56

rightly so a lot of people are

7:59

saying while he be talking about misinformation,

8:01

where are the rules and regulations around old

8:03

media as well? And I think we've

8:05

got a real problem here. We're in 2024 and

8:08

our media regulation rules for both old and

8:10

new and the new paradigm are

8:13

just not up to scratch and not fit

8:15

for purpose. We actually need an overview

8:17

and an overhaul of media regulation

8:20

across the board because the

8:22

platforms by which we access news,

8:24

whether it is the Guardian, whether

8:26

it is the ABC, whether it

8:28

is the Murdoch press is increasingly

8:30

moving to an online platform and

8:33

yet it's not regulated in any

8:35

of the same way. So

8:37

hold that for a moment before we come

8:39

to the idea of news media regulation. Can

8:41

we just stick with the platforms for a

8:43

second? To the point

8:45

you're making about regulation, it's connected.

8:48

I went back and booked at

8:50

the Senate Economics Committee's report from late

8:53

last year on the influence

8:55

of international platforms. Now, you weren't a

8:57

member of the committee. Your colleague, David Shubridge, was. And

8:59

it was chaired by Liberal Andrew Bragg. But

9:02

it looked at everything across the

9:04

board and how these giant platforms

9:06

are influencing our community, everything from

9:08

the child safety point that you

9:10

make to artificial intelligence, the

9:12

impact that it's having across the board, the algorithms,

9:14

the way they charge for their apps, all of

9:16

it. And one of the

9:18

key takeaways from that report was they

9:20

said no one's really in charge of

9:23

regulating these platforms in a holistic sense.

9:25

They pointed to other industries

9:27

like airlines and banks and even

9:29

telecommunications companies and they all have regulatory

9:32

codes that these platforms don't. The

9:35

government members on that committee were sort of

9:37

playing down the findings, saying, look, we've got

9:39

inquiries, we've got the ACCC, we've got enough

9:41

measures in place we don't need to do

9:43

much. But in light of what we have

9:45

seen in these past couple of weeks, what

9:47

do you make of a recommendation that there

9:50

needs to be some overarching

9:53

regulatory body targeting

9:55

the platforms and all of the aspects

9:57

of what They do, coordinating... the word.

10:00

Say the Ak Safety Commissioner who as you

10:02

say just has a narrow Philly, downright tasks

10:04

and is very busy each. What do you

10:06

think about that is is that a good

10:09

idea and should the government have been doing

10:11

that already. I think we.

10:13

I think you're right across the

10:15

globe. This is happening. Governments have

10:17

been caught flat footed and what's

10:20

happened? Is they platforms is gonna remember

10:22

that when I spoke first came along

10:24

the which would affect can the long

10:26

they saw themselves as disruptive you know

10:28

that was start ups and that were

10:30

disrupted and now the respectively monopolies. We're

10:33

now twenty twenty four In a

10:35

space where they suck, forms are

10:37

effectively. Critical infrastructure. right?

10:39

For the modern world and in any other

10:42

place to be a critical infrastructure. Government.

10:44

Regulate They are the say

10:46

they protects. Name. Sure that

10:49

the public interest is being looked

10:51

after and with got these extraordinary

10:53

critical infrastructure that he's not being

10:55

government. And whether it's in

10:57

a democratic country like Australia or elsewhere,

11:00

Sorry I I do think

11:02

am calls for overarching. Regulation

11:04

and a regulator is where things

11:07

will probably make to die, but

11:09

governments are sorry behind the eight

11:11

ball and on how to be

11:14

concerned. Listening and rating comments from

11:16

Peter Dutton in relation to this

11:18

issue around. The Law Mosque and now.

11:21

It's kind of fact tracking you not to

11:23

being old dumb blazing earlier in the wake.

11:25

Now he sang all when we know it's

11:27

all too hard. To too long and

11:29

government had said it's all too hard. And.

11:31

What's going on is the

11:33

community is same. Now they're

11:35

experiencing the risks. Online.

11:38

Best saying that this is unfair. They're saying

11:40

that. That is this. The

11:42

extraordinary amount of money, But these phones, mike

11:44

and then on. even textbooks like. Billions

11:47

and billions of dollars Trillion dollars we're

11:49

not flooding are the same into their

11:52

coffers and Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere.

11:54

And it's not have. Begun

11:56

Yet this is critical public

11:58

infrastructure. And we need a prop. I prefer what

12:01

we've seen. Talk of help you know,

12:03

maybe the international community that should come

12:05

together that they should be at a

12:07

whole a wholesale at endeavor. Involving

12:10

major countries to try and

12:12

get. These tech companies to pull

12:14

the me to lie but.we struck a

12:16

problem ultimately with something like the constitutional

12:18

free speech protections in the United States

12:21

that end up. Being. A roadblock

12:23

to action because everyone points to free speech

12:25

and as we can't we combine them in

12:27

well as I guess that comes. Back

12:29

to my point that is. this

12:31

isn't about restricting freedom of expression.

12:34

It's about limiting the harm

12:36

that the business models that

12:38

these companies drive and. Sadly,

12:41

It the shortest path to me. That

12:44

they sat phone. Is site. Violence.

12:47

Extremism. Conspiracy Live

12:50

and. That's why

12:52

the algorithms pushed him. Because.

12:55

It's the shortest. Path to

12:57

Clicks and the answers the

13:00

question. Of these extreme views

13:02

are think people need to understand com

13:04

at the cost and the villain. Of

13:07

other views. Level playing field.

13:09

It's a pay to play. Atmosphere:

13:11

Where were operating in here? If you put

13:14

money behind your post, It's more

13:16

likely to get up the top of

13:18

the ranked if you a generate outrage.

13:20

If it's that kind of extremism you

13:22

fades into the algorithm, it goes up

13:24

the ranks. Other views: Legitimate

13:26

views. Perhaps. That

13:29

information out there that would be

13:31

needed. in terms of you know

13:33

that's fair, local community or an

13:35

individual gets pushed down Say it's

13:37

not an equal playing field. That's

13:39

not about freedom of speech. This

13:41

is about making sure they're a

13:43

dog growls around. How these platforms

13:46

monetize people. At. Place people's

13:48

views, people's desire for connection.

13:51

Will We took a lot about

13:53

corporate social responsibility, but but realistically,

13:55

how do you legislate for corporate.

13:58

Social. Conscious. Yeah,

14:01

and I think when you're dealing with individuals like

14:03

Elon Musk, I think you can understand

14:05

why people go, oh my gosh, this

14:07

bloke has no care, no concern,

14:09

obviously no social conscience. But

14:12

the EU is doing it. They've just brought in

14:14

laws over the last 12 months in relation

14:16

to putting some restrictions around and it

14:19

goes right to the heart of the

14:21

algorithm, making things more transparent, having

14:23

restrictions around how data of miners

14:26

is used, that you can't

14:28

use algorithms to target particular groups

14:30

of people. Young people is

14:32

one of them, but it means you can't have

14:34

targeted algorithms on race, on

14:37

religious views, a bunch of things so

14:39

that people aren't not just targeted, but then

14:41

targeted and isolated from the views of others.

14:44

The EU is doing it and Australia needs

14:46

to get on board this global push and

14:48

we're not doing this alone. So let's talk

14:51

more about the media regulation point. I know

14:53

you've got a bill that's being examined by

14:55

a Senate committee at the moment. You've spoken

14:58

this week about trying to

15:00

haul some of these people, if not Elon

15:02

Musk personally, then someone representing him and others

15:04

from other platforms before the committee. What

15:07

would your bill do and what would be

15:09

the point of bringing those people in if

15:11

you can even do that? Look,

15:13

this is about the fact that we

15:16

need fit for purpose media regulation. There

15:18

is this constant connection between the

15:20

old media and the new

15:22

media and players in between and we

15:25

just don't have the rules. I

15:27

don't think it matters whether you're a tech

15:29

billionaire like Elon Musk or

15:31

Mark Zuckerberg or a

15:33

media mogul like Rupert Murdoch or

15:36

Kerry Stokes. The public has

15:38

a right to know and trust

15:40

the news and information that's

15:42

posted by trusted sources. It is

15:44

in the public interest to make

15:47

sure that we have proper media

15:49

regulation that delivers quality public interest

15:51

use to members of the community. Are

15:54

we talking about things that are not

15:57

possible really? Maybe this goes back to the

15:59

point about the we can't police the

16:02

entire world. Is

16:04

there somewhere realistically in between what we

16:06

have now and the

16:08

ideal of a properly regulated media

16:10

industry and across both traditional

16:13

media and new media

16:15

that would deal both with the problems we see

16:18

in the immediate future

16:20

currently and the problems might

16:22

be coming down the pipe? Honestly, when

16:24

licensing for broadcasters was brought in decades

16:26

and decades ago, broadcasters didn't

16:28

want the licensing either. There's

16:30

always been pushback. But when

16:33

you are offering information news

16:35

to the public, there needs to

16:38

be some legitimacy. There needs to

16:40

be accountability. And there

16:42

needs to be a social license. And

16:44

I think there's no silver bullet to

16:46

this. And I guess that's the point

16:49

of my regulation Royal Commission is to

16:51

say, look, we don't

16:53

have the right rules. It shouldn't be

16:55

up to politicians, frankly, to do this.

16:57

I don't think that's a good place.

16:59

But what our job is, is to

17:01

reflect the concerns in the community. And

17:03

there's certainly concerns in the community that

17:05

media regulation is not up to scratch,

17:08

that social media is a free for

17:10

all, that people don't worryingly, increasingly don't

17:12

trust the news that they see, read

17:14

and hear. And that

17:16

is bad for democracy. And it

17:19

is a fundamental threat to democracy

17:21

if we don't have trusted news

17:23

sources. So how do we make sure

17:25

we protect and invest

17:27

in trusted news sources and

17:29

ensure that it's accessible to everybody? And

17:31

that's why we need an overhaul of

17:34

regulation and a Royal Commission will be

17:36

able to do that. Your

17:38

Royal Commission proposal originally, though, was just about

17:40

the Murdoch media, was it not? Like, are

17:42

you now talking about was that on reflection

17:44

too narrow and maybe not fair and now

17:46

it needs to be broader or do you

17:48

think that is still the frame? To be

17:50

fair, the terms of reference have always been

17:52

broader. But yes, you

17:55

called it the Murdoch media regulation bill. I

17:58

think upon reflection. I think

18:00

the community, while they're upset

18:03

and they distrust Murdoch Media, they're

18:05

increasingly looking at other players and going,

18:07

you know, this needs a clean up

18:10

across the board. And so,

18:12

you know, maybe it's a reframing,

18:14

but nonetheless, some type

18:16

of independent commission

18:19

to inquire, to

18:22

test and push the boundaries

18:24

to try and have that

18:26

overarching regulation. It's

18:28

well and truly over time. And

18:30

I don't think it's good enough just to go, oh, it's

18:33

all too hard. Oh, you know, maybe we've missed the boat.

18:36

Every time government has put in place

18:38

and permits have acted on trying

18:41

to regulate, particularly in the technology

18:43

space, it quickly gets

18:45

out of date because how

18:47

fast the world transitions. And

18:51

that's not an excuse for not doing anything.

18:54

I've expressed some frustration around

18:56

the news media bargaining code

18:59

and the way that's being enforced.

19:01

So what you're talking about, I guess, with regulation is with

19:04

a royal commission is, okay, let's have it

19:06

all on the table and see what changes

19:08

we need to make, what comes to light,

19:10

what legislative responses we need to improve the

19:12

situation. But you're also arguing that the government

19:15

has some powers now that it isn't using.

19:17

Now, under the news media bargaining code, there's

19:19

a power of designation, which as I understand

19:21

it, if a platform or a company is

19:23

designated by the government, then that triggers

19:26

some obligations under the code. Firstly, can

19:28

you just explain what those obligations would

19:30

be and why you

19:32

think they haven't been designated any

19:34

platforms? Yeah. So the

19:36

news media bargaining code was

19:39

one element to try and

19:41

deal with some of the need to ensure

19:43

that there is trusted news on

19:46

these platforms, but also to ensure that journalists get

19:48

paid for the work that they do. Right. So

19:50

that was making those big companies pay for every

19:52

time they put other media news on their site

19:54

from journalists, they had to pay for it. And

19:57

now at least one company is saying that I

19:59

want to do that anymore. Yeah, so Mecha

20:01

and Google's trust deals with a number

20:03

of media companies across the country in

20:05

here in Australia. This was leading legislation

20:07

and Mecha have now said they

20:09

won't renew these contracts. They're not interested. They

20:12

say it's because the users on

20:14

Facebook and Instagram aren't interested in

20:17

news, which

20:19

I have a real cynicism for. I don't believe

20:21

that for a second. But what I

20:23

am worried about is that if they are

20:26

to block news and links

20:28

and information from trusted news providers

20:31

like The Guardian, like the ABC,

20:33

like the Murdoch Press, like

20:35

the local newspaper in

20:38

a small rural town.

20:41

They call it Murdoch Press a trusted provider now.

20:43

Hang on a minute. Well,

20:46

they are in the terms

20:48

of, you know, they've got rules and regulations

20:50

that the social

20:53

media publishers don't. There

20:55

are some decent journalists at News Corp,

20:57

of course, who do good

20:59

work, but it's the business model of

21:02

outrage that I see coming from Murdoch

21:04

management that worries me the most and

21:07

their undue influence. But I

21:09

digress. I'll come back. The

21:12

purpose of designation is to say that

21:14

these companies, Mecha, Google and anybody else

21:16

that would be designated, would have to

21:18

pay for the content that they carry,

21:20

news content that they carry. They pay,

21:22

you know, it's journalist work. It's

21:25

being used on the platform. Users

21:27

are accessing it, reading it, consuming

21:30

it. Therefore, as a publisher, those

21:33

social media companies should pay. The

21:36

missing point here, though, is that if

21:38

they're designated under the current law, they're

21:41

only designated for what they carry. And

21:44

Mecha are threatening, like they've done in

21:46

Canada, to just not carry news at

21:48

all. To say, OK, well, we

21:50

don't want to have to pay for it. So we

21:53

just won't even we will ban the

21:55

sharing of news links. We

21:57

will be prioritised using their

21:59

outreach. algorithm, pushing down to

22:01

the bottom, news content. And

22:04

I think that's a real risk. And

22:06

in the real kind of life exchange,

22:09

it would mean something like you might

22:11

be in a Facebook group

22:13

and somebody posts a conspiracy

22:15

theory about something, maybe a

22:17

conspiracy theory about what happened

22:19

with the Bondi attacks. Now

22:22

rather than being able as a

22:24

member of that group to post a news story

22:26

to debunk that myth, you won't be

22:28

able to do that if meta

22:30

banned news sources

22:33

and news links. So therefore

22:35

it just becomes a platform

22:37

for mis and disinformation, conspiracy,

22:39

hatred, lies,

22:43

even more than it is now. And

22:46

so I think, I know the former

22:49

ACCC Commissioner Rod Sims is of

22:51

this view as well, that

22:53

along with designating their social

22:55

media platform to have to

22:57

pay for the content, the

23:00

news content, I actually

23:02

think they need to be designated to

23:04

carry news in the public

23:06

interest because otherwise it

23:08

will just be a platform of

23:11

mis and disinformation that can never

23:13

be debunked by you, me, an individual

23:15

user or an organisation. Is that legally

23:17

possible to do that? Well,

23:20

it's something that I think is worth

23:22

having a look at how you regulate

23:24

it. I know other countries around the

23:26

world are considering these moves.

23:29

Wouldn't they say, well, what is news? Who's news?

23:32

Of course, but there are already

23:35

ways that we categorise this. There

23:37

are companies that

23:40

ACMA, the media regulator, uses

23:43

to decide who these platforms

23:45

should pay for their content.

23:47

There's a number of ways that you

23:49

could say, you're a trusted news source,

23:52

Facebook should not be able to ban

23:54

the carriage of your content.

23:58

It's an interesting idea. There's a lot

24:00

more we could talk about in relation to

24:03

that, but I'm conscious there are other issues

24:05

in your portfolio that I want to ask

24:07

you about. And can we talk about the

24:09

terrible incidents of violence against women that we've

24:11

seen talked about

24:13

publicly, particularly in the last week or so?

24:16

Are we having another moment in relation to

24:18

this issue? Do we keep having moments

24:21

and then nothing happens? Like what should the

24:24

response be to these terrible

24:26

examples of particularly family violence, but not

24:28

only family violence? You mentioned the Bondi

24:31

attacks, you know, all of the victims

24:33

aside from the security guard who valiantly

24:35

tried to stop that attacker were women,

24:37

all the ones who died. Are we

24:40

having another moment? What on earth should we

24:42

be doing that we are not? This

24:45

is horrendous, isn't it, Karen? I

24:48

mean, 31 women killed violently this

24:51

year already. That's more than one

24:53

a week. Even by the

24:55

hands of their partner or their ex-partner

24:58

or someone who wished they were their

25:00

partner, it is just, I

25:03

mean, this is an epidemic. And

25:05

it's time we started talking about it, not in terms

25:07

of just violence against women. This is the murder of

25:09

women. This is the terrorising of

25:11

women in their home and

25:14

on the street. Women don't feel

25:16

safe. Well, we've

25:18

heard some, we've heard to that point,

25:20

we've heard some debate since the Bondi

25:22

junction attacks about whether terrorising is always

25:24

terrorism and should it be that and

25:27

why do we designate other forms of

25:29

violence as terrorism around certain ideologies when

25:31

sometimes there's an ideology or a particular

25:33

view of women that drives that. And

25:35

I'm not making that comment in relation

25:38

to any particular incident involving

25:40

individuals. But more broadly, is it terrorism? Is it

25:42

time that we started to change the way we

25:45

thought about it? Well, I do think we need

25:47

to change the way we think about

25:49

it and the way we talk about it because

25:51

what we're doing so far is not working. It

25:54

is the murder of women. It

25:56

is the terrorising of women and

25:58

often women and children. children in their own home,

26:01

it's not good enough just to say, oh, you're to

26:04

be wringing our hands of it. Like,

26:06

where is the fundamental, they

26:08

have all shoulders to the

26:10

wheel approach to tackle this?

26:13

In what, in what way? I mean, we've

26:15

had many summits, we've had reports, inquiries. Yes.

26:18

And women over and over and over

26:20

again, keep calling for and asking for,

26:23

when are our frontline

26:25

services going to be funded properly? When are

26:27

we going to have a guarantee that

26:29

women won't be turned away when they ask

26:31

for help? When are

26:33

we going to ensure that women are

26:35

protected when they report and even have

26:38

an ex partner convicted of something that

26:40

they were not able to come

26:42

after them in revenge? Women

26:44

have had so many meetings, there've been so

26:47

many summits, there've been so much

26:49

heartache and yet it's still politicians and

26:51

political leaders wring their hands and

26:53

say, oh, this is so terrible. It's

26:56

an epidemic. Oh, it's so

26:58

terrible. I just, where is the

27:00

overarching prioritization that this

27:03

is something that that is

27:05

rife and needs to be

27:07

tackled? And I'm very concerned to be

27:09

perfectly blunt about the

27:12

impact, particularly that social media

27:14

is having on this, that the algorithms again,

27:16

I know we've kind of just come off

27:18

that topic, but I am worried about what

27:21

is being pushed and promoted, particularly

27:23

into young men's social media feeds.

27:26

It is across the board how we tackle

27:28

this issue and yet for some reason it

27:30

gets left to the

27:32

various ministers for women rather

27:34

than the top leadership

27:37

level across all divisions.

27:39

I've taken a lot of time talking about social

27:42

media and media and we've only just touched on

27:44

women. I do want to ask

27:46

you one more question about that and then let's

27:48

quickly talk about some environmental issues, which of course

27:50

are also important to you and generally. What

27:53

about the issue before we leave the issue of women

27:55

about apprehended violence orders? You talk

27:57

about adequate protection, so that's supposed to protect

27:59

women. How well do you think they protect women?

28:01

Do they need more teeth somehow? Well,

28:03

they clearly aren't protecting women. And I think

28:05

the examples, the terrible, terrible

28:08

examples of the last few weeks are

28:10

showing that there does need to be

28:12

a real root and branch review

28:15

of the justice system for

28:17

women and the protection, the protections

28:19

in place for them. It's just not

28:22

excusable. If this was in the health system,

28:24

if one person per week was dying

28:27

in the health system because

28:29

of a lack of infrastructure,

28:31

a lack of the

28:33

kind of systematic problem, kids

28:35

would roll. Why isn't

28:38

it being dealt with in the same way this time

28:41

it was? I know there's rallies across the

28:43

country this weekend. I'll be speaking at the

28:45

one here in Adelaide. And

28:48

what I am hopeful and what gives me

28:51

some sense of encouragement

28:53

is that actually this

28:55

weekend's rallies are being run by young

28:57

women. There is a new generation of

28:59

women coming forward who are sick and

29:02

tired of the excuses and they just

29:04

want to be respected by their peers

29:06

and they want others to

29:09

expect that they should get respected as well.

29:11

Well, what's your message to the rally and to

29:13

the nation? Do we have to have

29:15

an all of government approach to this? And that's

29:17

why the prime minister should declare

29:19

violence against women a

29:22

national emergency. Simple. Let's

29:24

get on with it. It will be interesting

29:26

to see what emerges from those rallies. Weekend rallies.

29:29

Let's briefly talk at

29:31

least about environmental matters. We

29:33

saw the environment minister, Tanya

29:35

Plibersek, recently make a couple

29:37

of announcements within her portfolio,

29:39

creating two environment bodies, Environment

29:41

Information Australia being one and

29:43

an environment protection agency, but

29:45

also putting off till later

29:47

some other aspects of reform.

29:50

What do you make of that? Is it fair enough to say you

29:52

need more time to work on this? I

29:54

think most people who've been in this

29:56

space and watching it and hoping that the

29:59

Labor government were going to deliver. on their promises

30:01

are pretty disappointed, frankly. What

30:03

has happened is the government

30:05

has announced that they're dumping

30:07

the commitment to fix the

30:09

rules. The rules around environmental

30:12

protection and what is assessed

30:14

and how approvals are given

30:17

is really the problem. They're not working. They

30:19

don't stop the destruction of critical

30:21

habitat, for example, even like say

30:24

koala habitat, they don't stop native

30:26

forest logging. They don't assess or

30:28

even think about the impact of

30:30

projects on the climate, what type

30:33

of pollution. They don't stop the

30:35

expansion of new coal and gas. The

30:37

current laws are failing to protect the

30:39

environment. And so rather than fixing those

30:41

laws, that's been put in

30:44

the too hard basket. It's not gonna happen

30:46

this term of government. The

30:48

government dumped that promise and

30:50

instead of moving ahead with what

30:52

they're calling a new agency, but

30:54

really it's basically a new desk

30:56

inside the department, the Environment Protection

30:58

Australia. They're gonna put a new

31:00

public servant in, they'll sit on another desk

31:03

in the department and effectively

31:06

look at compliance and monitoring. But

31:08

compliance and monitoring against what

31:11

are broken rules and ineffective rules.

31:13

So I'm pretty disappointed. I know

31:15

lots of people who were really

31:18

hoping that there was an opportunity

31:20

to protect the environment properly

31:22

and to fix these laws are upset.

31:25

This is gonna mean more logging of native forest, more

31:27

expanding of coal and gas, making

31:30

climate change worse at

31:32

a time when we fundamentally have to put

31:34

the brakes on this stuff. If we are

31:36

actually gonna have a chance of halting extinction

31:39

and stopping runaway climate change. The people of the

31:41

success are just not ready yet. They

31:44

need to be done properly. They're not ready.

31:46

But Karen, the

31:49

mining industry has been lobbying hard. The

31:51

big business groups have been lobbying hard.

31:53

They didn't want these, they don't want these laws

31:55

fixed. And so The

31:58

environment in this is caved in. It

32:01

currently is. Edit it and what

32:03

we're gonna say is more Force

32:05

destroyed. No. Threats to

32:08

native animals. And

32:10

more coal and gas. Pollution. I.

32:12

Went off You Just finally that brainwashing

32:14

on know you have an interest in

32:16

this issue that the Senate inquiry it

32:19

had some more evidence in the past

32:21

wage you've raised concerns about carbon. the

32:23

carbon neutral labeling program. What's what's your

32:25

concern about that per gallon? He gets

32:27

her going where companies pays her have

32:29

a a carbon neutral libel d Is

32:31

it the paying for it? But the

32:33

problem is it. is it how they

32:35

qualify? what else. Besides. Role.

32:38

Greenwashing. Is. It's becoming a bigger

32:40

and bigger problem And and and governments. Are

32:42

having to to tackle this and

32:45

a by greenwashing we may and

32:47

company's coming up wastes ostensibly environmental

32:49

measures that as opposed. To improve

32:51

the public reputation but don't do a

32:53

lot internet environmentally and he says and

32:55

and at least as though because the

32:58

consumer. The. Public Speaking to be

33:00

to members of our community. To

33:02

save isn't wearing an environment cross the

33:04

same? Know that we need to be

33:06

and at acting and I want. To be

33:08

able to make choices. And. Themselves about

33:11

how to show that when you go

33:13

to the supermarket. Nice safe or on

33:15

the shelves. A product it says it's

33:17

greener than the credit next door. He

33:19

bought that one because it makes you

33:21

feel like a healthy environment. The.

33:23

Problem is. Many. Businesses

33:25

and companies. A Psyche

33:27

Net. And then not being honest

33:30

about how Green Bay's products really are

33:32

and one is the one of the

33:34

the systems are using. To to

33:36

change a thing brain as opposed

33:38

to saying staff from the Federal

33:41

government under this Climate Active program

33:43

which we've discovered through. The Senate

33:45

Inquiry just doesn't hit the mark

33:47

in terms of being environmentally credible,

33:49

and they call a Carbon Neutral

33:51

that in of itself is a

33:53

vague. and unhelpful ten

33:56

am wearing a crisis the

33:58

climate crisis now where we

34:01

can't just be carbon neutral, we actually

34:03

have to stop making

34:05

pollution and actually reduce the

34:08

reliance on fossil fuels. Carbon

34:11

neutral as a tagline just

34:13

doesn't have any environmental credibility anymore.

34:16

So the bar needs to be higher,

34:18

you're saying? The bar needs to be

34:20

higher. And interestingly, through this inquiry, and

34:22

this is shocking to people to

34:24

find out, that the

34:26

ACCC, the regulator, the

34:29

government regulator who goes in

34:31

and assesses people's trademarks, whether

34:33

something is 100% organic or whether

34:35

it's fair trade, they were asked to

34:38

assess this climate active stamp

34:40

from the Federal Environment Department. And

34:43

they said the ACCC, that it wasn't

34:45

clear enough, that the

34:47

rules by which it was certified were

34:49

not clear enough, were not up to

34:52

scratch, and they refused to certify. So

34:54

it's not even a properly certified trademark

34:57

under the ACCC rules. That's

35:00

concerning in and of itself. I mean, if both

35:02

two arms of government can't even back each

35:04

other in, you've got a problem. Final

35:06

question here on greenwashing, because we've kept

35:09

you and Chad a long time, but

35:11

the very popular programme MasterChef is back

35:13

on on the CHEN network now, their

35:15

new season is still using gas, but

35:17

they're talking about it being a cleaner

35:19

form of gas. I think Bio methane

35:21

and a number of other measures. What

35:24

do you make of the argument that it's

35:26

better than other kinds of gas that at least

35:28

it's heading in the right direction? I know some

35:30

critics have called that greenwashing, but isn't there an

35:32

argument that at least there's progress? Well,

35:36

firstly, this Bio methane

35:38

isn't even available for customers.

35:40

Right. So this

35:42

sponsorship of the gas company

35:45

using providing this type of gas,

35:47

the MasterChef, is

35:50

greenwashing because all it's doing is

35:52

promoting the gas company and their

35:54

brand and giving it a social licence.

35:57

Why do companies greenwash? Because they

35:59

want a message to... Customers and to

36:01

consumers that they grain as and they

36:03

really are he can't bring up the

36:05

gas company and they all had by

36:07

amazing thanks or for hydrogen. Is

36:09

a hydrogen the using a mouse ship

36:11

other ways and even grain is offset.

36:13

Hydrogen valid Still creating just as much

36:16

pollution. It's still just as talk They

36:18

could still just as bad in other

36:20

countries where Master Chef. Is successful.

36:22

Have. Put induction cooktop seems

36:24

onto the show so. In the

36:27

Uk and elsewhere in Denmark

36:29

they've got induction cook and

36:31

it would be much better

36:33

in Australia for master. Chefs

36:35

to damn Edu promoting

36:37

induction because. That were a

36:40

thrilling how cold the gonna have

36:42

to die as it's cheaper, it's

36:44

cleaner and the government needs to

36:46

stop shopping as trailing household Alexa

36:48

fi their horns that's where we're

36:50

gonna have to guard. Bio

36:52

Me sane. Hydrogen. even

36:54

if it's grain adjust not available to customers.

36:56

so it's it's rubbish. it's a rubbish argument.

36:59

it's wanna sell the name of the company,

37:01

give them a and a bit of a

37:03

grain teams it's greenwashing said at a Sarah

37:05

Hanson Young. So much to talk about with

37:08

covered a lot is plenty more we could

37:10

discuss what we've gotta go Zags I'd very

37:12

much for joining us illustrating whole to wonderful

37:14

debate here thinking. This

37:19

episode with produced by James Wilson.

37:21

The executive producer is Miles Martin

37:23

Jani Thanks for listening! See you

37:26

next! I'm. Tired.

37:39

Of ads barging into your favorite

37:41

news broadcasts. Good. News ad Free

37:43

listening is available on Amazon Music for

37:45

all the music plus top podcast included

37:48

with your prime membership. Stay up

37:50

to date on everything newsworthy by

37:52

downloading the Amazon Music app for

37:54

free or go to amazon.com/news ad

37:56

free. That. amazon.com/news ad

37:59

free. The catch up on

38:01

the latest episodes without the ads. How

38:03

can people. Says the price a

38:05

high education transformation improves success and

38:07

Eli reports suggest that taken emotional

38:10

and psychological factors into account is

38:12

just as important as the technology.

38:14

Six factors lead to see him

38:17

and scented afraid, leadership, inspiration, care,

38:19

empowerment, investment and collaboration. Get these

38:21

rights and they to more than

38:24

double and organizations chance of transformation

38:26

success. Learn more about people says

38:28

transformation at the Guardian that palm

38:31

oil. Sauce transforming higher education.

38:33

This messes with total. Body was.