Host:
A major fight is looming in Canberra this morning over the future of social media. The Coalition and One Nation are both tipped to fight Labor’s plans to give Australians the right to ditch algorithms.
Let’s bring in today’s talkers: Liberal Senator Paul Scarr in Brisbane and our own Lizzie Pearl here in the studio.
Hello to you both.
Paul, we’ll start with you. Given you’re on the Liberal side, will the Coalition oppose this potential plan and, if so, why?
Senator Paul Scarr:
We need to see the details. We haven’t actually seen the detail of what the government’s proposing.
We know a few things. We know that there is an issue with respect to harm caused through social media. Meta has just settled an $18 billion claim in the United States that was brought by a number of states over there in relation to harm caused to teenagers.
At the same time, we’ve got to get the balance right. We’ve got to make sure we don’t overregulate and that we don’t impede freedom of speech.
So we need to see the detail, hear from all the relevant stakeholders, and then come up with the best system that is going to provide the best outcome for the Australian people.
Host:
Will you get to see that detail before making a decision?
Senator Paul Scarr:
Oh, absolutely. And look, I’ll be calling for the detail, and I’ll also be calling for an opportunity for the Australian people to have their say through the Senate committee processes and other processes, so we hear the views of the Australian people.
Lizzie, being able to opt out of algorithms sounds pretty good for a lot of Aussies, I think. Could restrictions harm free speech, which is one of the concerns?
Lizzie Pearl:
Yeah, look, I don’t think so.
Wasn’t social media a much nicer place when you just saw and heard from people you chose to follow? It’s a pretty basic thing, I think.
In terms of free speech, people can still say things they believe in and say what they want to. It’s just not going to show up in your feed uninvited or unannounced, and that doom-scrolling and going down rabbit holes will be somewhat restricted.
But in terms of harming free speech, I don’t think so. Hate speech is banned. You can still say whatever you want on social media.
Host:
If you’re getting to choose whether you’ve got the algorithms or not, that is kind of the definition of having freedom.
Lizzie Pearl:
Absolutely correct.
Host:
It’s not showing up unannounced on your phone.
Moving on to a classroom controversy now. Nationals leader Matt Canavan is under fire for claiming respectful relationships education was pushing an anti-boy ideology.
Paul, the New South Wales Deputy Premier called the comments disgusting. Surely educating our kids about healthy relationships isn’t just anti-boy?
Senator Paul Scarr:
Oh, absolutely. We need to have appropriate education with respect to consent. It needs to be age-appropriate, and it also needs to be effective.
But I think the criticism of Matt is completely over the top. If people hear everything he said, he made a number of really important points.
One of the points he made is that there is a huge shortage of male primary school teachers. It’s fallen from 30 per cent in the 1980s and is now down to 13 per cent. This has been raised by a number of important organisations, including the Australian Primary Principals Association, which represents thousands of principals.
So we should have a really decent debate and discussion without getting personal in terms of attacking people when they’re raising legitimate issues or concerns.
Host:
Lizzie, where do you stand on this?
Lizzie Pearl:
Look, I think we can all agree that the status quo just isn’t working.
We have seen a number of horrific allegations surrounding teenage boys in Sydney in the last few months. They are allegations at this point, and I think that needs to be clear.
But if teaching boys, and teaching everyone, about consent in a classroom is seen as anti-boy, I think we have a real problem, because it’s not just about boys and girls. Everyone needs to learn consent.
And if that’s driving them towards the manosphere and looking up radical opinions online, then we have a much bigger problem than we think.
Host:
It’s a problem that needs to be addressed.
Finally, it’s the question at the centre of today’s great debate: office romances, yay or nay?
Paul, what do you reckon?
Senator Paul Scarr:
My beautiful marriage is the result of an office romance, so what can I say?
And can I just say it gave me an opportunity. I can’t say nay. Absolutely not. I’m smarter than that.
I’m a bit of a slow-burn guy, so it took time for my wife to become attracted to all of my attributes. The office was the perfect environment for me to find my life partner.
Host:
Just persistent, and you wore her down over time, Paul.
What about you, Lizzie?
Lizzie Pearl:
Look, when these things begin, it’s always a very happy and joyful time in the office. You know, you might be sneaking around. It’s a little bit of fun.
When they end, it’s a different story, and I’ll leave it at that.
Host:
Lizzie’s an early yay and a later nay, I think it’s fair to say.
Lizzie Pearl:
Hey, that’s it. That’s all I’m saying.
Host:
Ah, yeah. Look, my marriage is also the result of an office romance, so I can’t say—
Senator Paul Scarr:
You sly dog.
Host:
Hey, Lizzie, great to talk to you.
