WEBVTT - Will the ‘Albo-rithm’ censor the internet?

0:00:00.730 --> 0:00:02.500
<v Speaker 1>Hey Phil, how would you describe Albo?

0:00:02.620 --> 0:00:05.519
<v Speaker 2>Albo is a leader who puts principle above popularity.

0:00:05.700 --> 0:00:08.180
<v Speaker 3>Albo is an absolute phenomenal golfer.

0:00:08.220 --> 0:00:09.200
<v Speaker 2>He always gets holes in.

0:00:09.260 --> 0:00:09.799
<v Speaker 4>One whenever he plays.

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:12.380
<v Speaker 5>The Coalition is saying that soon you won't be able

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.380
<v Speaker 5>to criticise the Prime Minister on the internet. I don't

0:00:15.430 --> 0:00:18.169
<v Speaker 5>trust Labor to censor Australian social media.

0:00:18.910 --> 0:00:19.340
<v Speaker 4>Do you?

0:00:20.630 --> 0:00:23.870
<v Speaker 5>It's part of its campaign against Labor's proposed digital duty

0:00:23.910 --> 0:00:27.270
<v Speaker 5>of care, which the opposition has branded the Albo Rhythm.

0:00:27.790 --> 0:00:30.070
<v Speaker 5>arguing it would give the government the power to decide

0:00:30.190 --> 0:00:35.130
<v Speaker 5>what Australians can see and say online. So what's actually

0:00:35.229 --> 0:00:37.640
<v Speaker 5>in the government's bill, and how far does it go

0:00:37.740 --> 0:00:41.320
<v Speaker 5>to addressing the harms created by social media and its algorithms?

0:00:45.979 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 5>I'm Ruby Jones, and you're listening to 7am. Today, Chair

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:54.150
<v Speaker 5>of Digital Rights Watch Liz Yoshae, on whether Labor can

0:00:54.210 --> 0:00:57.050
<v Speaker 5>force big tech to change what it serves us, and

0:00:57.150 --> 0:01:04.100
<v Speaker 5>why Donald Trump's White House has now weighed in. It's Tuesday,

0:01:04.500 --> 0:01:12.880
<v Speaker 5>October 13. Lizzie, when it comes to the government's digital

0:01:13.000 --> 0:01:16.000
<v Speaker 5>duty of care, we've heard a lot about one particular

0:01:16.040 --> 0:01:19.640
<v Speaker 5>part of this proposal, giving people the ability to switch

0:01:19.680 --> 0:01:23.310
<v Speaker 5>off the algorithms that control their feed. But more broadly,

0:01:23.370 --> 0:01:24.970
<v Speaker 5>tell me about what's actually in this bill.

0:01:25.420 --> 0:01:28.110
<v Speaker 4>Yes, so the requirements of this bill is that it

0:01:28.170 --> 0:01:31.449
<v Speaker 4>creates a digital duty of care on certain kinds of

0:01:31.630 --> 0:01:34.330
<v Speaker 4>internet service providers, social media platforms and the like.

0:01:34.530 --> 0:01:37.910
<v Speaker 6>The same way that we have safety standards for cars,

0:01:38.410 --> 0:01:43.490
<v Speaker 6>for food, for appliances, Australia is setting basic safety standards

0:01:43.690 --> 0:01:47.309
<v Speaker 6>for the online tools and online services within our digital

0:01:47.350 --> 0:01:48.010
<v Speaker 6>duty of care.

0:01:49.650 --> 0:01:52.900
<v Speaker 4>The proposal is that these services have to provide a

0:01:52.940 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 4>safe online environment. And what that means is that they

0:01:56.120 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 4>have to protect users from certain kinds of content.

0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:02.220
<v Speaker 6>So the kind of serious harms that we're talking about here,

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:05.700
<v Speaker 6>that adults will be prevented from engaging in online, child

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:11.330
<v Speaker 6>sexual exploitation, child abuse material, child grooming, violence, sexual violence, menacing,

0:02:11.350 --> 0:02:15.350
<v Speaker 6>threatening or harassment, and the promotion of terrorism and extremency.

0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:18.430
<v Speaker 4>And then when it comes to children, there's a more

0:02:18.490 --> 0:02:22.990
<v Speaker 4>expansive list, which includes things like bullying content, content about

0:02:23.070 --> 0:02:26.410
<v Speaker 4>eating disorders and the like, as well as pornography. And

0:02:26.430 --> 0:02:29.930
<v Speaker 4>the idea is that platforms and other internet service providers

0:02:29.950 --> 0:02:32.889
<v Speaker 4>will have to protect people from that content. They'll have

0:02:32.930 --> 0:02:35.830
<v Speaker 4>to conduct risk assessments as well, and they'll have to

0:02:35.889 --> 0:02:39.889
<v Speaker 4>manage design features that are considered particularly harmful.

0:02:42.230 --> 0:02:44.370
<v Speaker 5>Okay, can you talk to me a little bit more

0:02:44.470 --> 0:02:47.889
<v Speaker 5>about that, about what creating a duty of care actually

0:02:48.130 --> 0:02:52.470
<v Speaker 5>solves that existing online safety laws haven't been able to?

0:02:52.490 --> 0:02:56.139
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, so online safety laws in Australia have been quite prescriptive.

0:02:56.220 --> 0:02:59.780
<v Speaker 4>There's a bunch of codes and basic online safety expectations

0:02:59.820 --> 0:03:02.530
<v Speaker 4>that have been set up. we're moving into a much

0:03:02.630 --> 0:03:07.940
<v Speaker 4>more straightforward overarching concept where we say to platforms, for example,

0:03:08.130 --> 0:03:09.880
<v Speaker 4>you have a duty of care. So it's not the

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:14.160
<v Speaker 4>user's obligation to work out what is harmful and protect themselves.

0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:18.040
<v Speaker 4>There's this overarching duty of care owed to users and

0:03:18.060 --> 0:03:20.799
<v Speaker 4>it puts the obligation back on the platform to do

0:03:20.860 --> 0:03:23.800
<v Speaker 4>that work. Now, I think what's interesting also about the

0:03:23.820 --> 0:03:26.960
<v Speaker 4>duty of care is that it does impose the obligation

0:03:26.980 --> 0:03:30.320
<v Speaker 4>to conduct risk assessments and rather than all this research

0:03:30.400 --> 0:03:34.530
<v Speaker 4>and analysis kept within the company, then instead they'll have

0:03:34.540 --> 0:03:36.410
<v Speaker 4>to do this work and share it with members of

0:03:36.450 --> 0:03:39.370
<v Speaker 4>the public and others, which gives us a better understanding

0:03:39.590 --> 0:03:41.310
<v Speaker 4>of what kinds of risks there are online.

0:03:42.230 --> 0:03:45.610
<v Speaker 5>And the big political argument now is over who gets

0:03:45.650 --> 0:03:50.190
<v Speaker 5>to decide what harm actually is. The Coalition is calling

0:03:50.230 --> 0:03:53.030
<v Speaker 5>this the Alborhythm. They say it gives the government the

0:03:53.050 --> 0:03:55.400
<v Speaker 5>power to censor lawful speech.

0:03:55.900 --> 0:03:58.340
<v Speaker 1>Supporting or going forward with this digital duty of care

0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:03.000
<v Speaker 1>legislation would be like putting Anthony Albanese in charge of

0:04:03.060 --> 0:04:07.490
<v Speaker 1>refereeing a South Sydney Rabideaus game. He's a big Rabideaus fan.

0:04:07.770 --> 0:04:09.470
<v Speaker 1>He can't be trusted to be the umpire.

0:04:09.970 --> 0:04:14.369
<v Speaker 5>One Nation is calling it CCP, communist style internet censorship.

0:04:14.650 --> 0:04:18.430
<v Speaker 3>So everything is about control the people. This stinks of

0:04:18.450 --> 0:04:23.300
<v Speaker 3>the Marxism and communism. It's about controlling the people, your

0:04:23.320 --> 0:04:26.620
<v Speaker 3>thought process. And once you do that, we've lost our democracy.

0:04:26.839 --> 0:04:31.150
<v Speaker 5>So under this draft, who actually decides what counts as

0:04:31.230 --> 0:04:33.890
<v Speaker 5>harmful and what checks are there on that power?

0:04:34.390 --> 0:04:36.490
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, so I think the first thing to say is

0:04:36.550 --> 0:04:39.090
<v Speaker 4>when you go online, what you see is a curated

0:04:39.150 --> 0:04:43.260
<v Speaker 4>set of content that is designed by the businesses that

0:04:43.339 --> 0:04:47.219
<v Speaker 4>run these online spaces. And they have particular motivations. Often

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:49.720
<v Speaker 4>they're trying to keep you online because they can expose

0:04:49.740 --> 0:04:52.380
<v Speaker 4>you to advertising, which is their business model. They often

0:04:52.420 --> 0:04:55.360
<v Speaker 4>have algorithms that prioritise certain kind of content that keep

0:04:55.420 --> 0:04:57.599
<v Speaker 4>you online for as long as possible, and it tends

0:04:57.660 --> 0:05:01.419
<v Speaker 4>to be more extreme. So the allegations or the claims

0:05:01.460 --> 0:05:04.720
<v Speaker 4>that this is a real promotion of censorship have to

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:07.900
<v Speaker 4>be understood in that context. The other big problem I've

0:05:07.920 --> 0:05:10.240
<v Speaker 4>got with this bill currently is there is an issue

0:05:10.400 --> 0:05:13.440
<v Speaker 4>of enforcement. How do we make sure that companies are

0:05:13.460 --> 0:05:16.410
<v Speaker 4>complying When we look at the Safety Commissioner, it's a

0:05:16.510 --> 0:05:21.990
<v Speaker 4>relatively well-resourced regulator, but currently that commissioner is regulating some

0:05:22.029 --> 0:05:23.810
<v Speaker 4>of the largest companies in the world, and it's very

0:05:23.910 --> 0:05:27.270
<v Speaker 4>difficult to do that effectively, even with a large budget.

0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:30.500
<v Speaker 4>And there's a question around whether the regulator alone should

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:33.120
<v Speaker 4>be doing that work, whether we need, like what we've

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:35.719
<v Speaker 4>seen in places like the United States, the right of

0:05:35.760 --> 0:05:39.659
<v Speaker 4>people to bring actions directly against these platforms when they've

0:05:39.700 --> 0:05:42.859
<v Speaker 4>caused harm. And I think there's some real utility in

0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:46.180
<v Speaker 4>thinking through how enforcement could work outside of just the

0:05:46.220 --> 0:05:48.820
<v Speaker 4>regulator being the sole source of enforcement.

0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 5>Okay, so there's this broad acknowledgement, I think, that algorithms

0:05:52.620 --> 0:05:57.060
<v Speaker 5>cause harm. So is what's being considered here enough, or

0:05:57.080 --> 0:06:00.089
<v Speaker 5>do you think we need more transparency about how platforms

0:06:00.130 --> 0:06:03.870
<v Speaker 5>are actually deciding what gets promoted and what gets suppressed

0:06:03.950 --> 0:06:04.610
<v Speaker 5>in the first place.

0:06:04.920 --> 0:06:07.000
<v Speaker 4>So there's a whole section of the bill that kind

0:06:07.020 --> 0:06:09.600
<v Speaker 4>of sits alongside the digital duty of care, which talks

0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:13.660
<v Speaker 4>about user empowerment tools. And there is very little detail

0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:16.980
<v Speaker 4>about what those user empowerment tools will be. So there

0:06:17.020 --> 0:06:18.920
<v Speaker 4>is a lot of complexity around this, like how you

0:06:18.980 --> 0:06:22.820
<v Speaker 4>make a user empowerment tool actually useful to users is

0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:25.200
<v Speaker 4>a bit of a thorny question. There's been in other

0:06:25.240 --> 0:06:28.469
<v Speaker 4>parts of the world, what has been described as malicious compliance,

0:06:28.650 --> 0:06:32.220
<v Speaker 4>whereby some of these companies make it difficult to continue

0:06:32.260 --> 0:06:34.480
<v Speaker 4>to maintain your preferences in what you might see in

0:06:34.500 --> 0:06:37.300
<v Speaker 4>your feed, for example, having to go through lots of

0:06:37.339 --> 0:06:41.840
<v Speaker 4>pop-ups and the like and continually restate what your preferences are.

0:06:42.120 --> 0:06:43.880
<v Speaker 4>And I think that is a problem, right? We have

0:06:43.900 --> 0:06:45.760
<v Speaker 4>to work out ways in which we can make it

0:06:46.220 --> 0:06:49.620
<v Speaker 4>as easy as possible to give people greater control over

0:06:49.680 --> 0:06:53.200
<v Speaker 4>what their online space looks like. And we're working in

0:06:53.250 --> 0:06:55.909
<v Speaker 4>this instance in dialogue with a bunch of companies that

0:06:55.990 --> 0:06:59.550
<v Speaker 4>might have business incentives that work against that. So it

0:06:59.589 --> 0:07:02.120
<v Speaker 4>would be a disappointing outcome, I think, if where it

0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:04.720
<v Speaker 4>led to was people just defaulting back to what they

0:07:04.779 --> 0:07:08.500
<v Speaker 4>currently have, which prioritises the interests of platforms, I think,

0:07:08.700 --> 0:07:12.390
<v Speaker 4>too often and can have really negative consequences. But we'll

0:07:12.410 --> 0:07:16.290
<v Speaker 4>have to see how that detail unfolds. And I think

0:07:16.330 --> 0:07:18.530
<v Speaker 4>there is a broader point here as well. How do

0:07:18.550 --> 0:07:21.230
<v Speaker 4>we make sure that content that is monetised online or

0:07:21.350 --> 0:07:26.030
<v Speaker 4>advertising content that appears in your feed is regulated? Advertising

0:07:26.070 --> 0:07:28.230
<v Speaker 4>can be really harmful because You know, we know that

0:07:28.290 --> 0:07:31.070
<v Speaker 4>some of the biggest advertisers on social media platforms are

0:07:31.130 --> 0:07:35.810
<v Speaker 4>fast food, gambling companies, alcohol companies, and they're very precise

0:07:35.850 --> 0:07:38.050
<v Speaker 4>in when they target you with particular forms of ads

0:07:38.090 --> 0:07:41.950
<v Speaker 4>based on your browsing history, your user history, the time

0:07:41.990 --> 0:07:44.650
<v Speaker 4>of day, what you might be exhibiting in terms of

0:07:44.690 --> 0:07:49.090
<v Speaker 4>your emotional state. Now, at the moment, advertising content is

0:07:49.110 --> 0:07:52.390
<v Speaker 4>pretty much excluded from the digital duty of care, but

0:07:52.490 --> 0:07:54.800
<v Speaker 4>there are, I think, some interesting ways in which we

0:07:54.830 --> 0:07:58.330
<v Speaker 4>could start to look at that issue. including by creating

0:07:58.480 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 4>ad libraries, for example, of all ads served on social media,

0:08:02.340 --> 0:08:04.860
<v Speaker 4>which would give people a greater understanding of what kind

0:08:04.900 --> 0:08:07.840
<v Speaker 4>of content is being prioritised in their feed that's paid for,

0:08:08.180 --> 0:08:12.070
<v Speaker 4>that justifies the business model, and perhaps criticising or coming

0:08:12.110 --> 0:08:14.050
<v Speaker 4>to terms with what is the social licence to operate

0:08:14.070 --> 0:08:17.170
<v Speaker 4>and whether we should have restrictions on advertising as it

0:08:17.210 --> 0:08:18.790
<v Speaker 4>appears in your feed, for example.

0:08:22.310 --> 0:08:25.280
<v Speaker 5>Still to come, why Donald Trump is weighing in on

0:08:25.320 --> 0:08:36.880
<v Speaker 5>all of this. Lizzie, the Trump administration has now made

0:08:36.900 --> 0:08:41.510
<v Speaker 5>a formal submission attacking this proposal and asking for American

0:08:41.650 --> 0:08:44.790
<v Speaker 5>social media companies to effectively be carved out of it.

0:08:45.110 --> 0:08:48.380
<v Speaker 1>Fears have been raised that new fines and taxes for

0:08:48.480 --> 0:08:52.559
<v Speaker 1>tech giants could be regarded as extortion by Donald Trump.

0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:55.980
<v Speaker 5>How unusual is it to have the US government intervene

0:08:56.260 --> 0:08:59.610
<v Speaker 5>publicly in Australian domestic legislation like this?

0:09:00.110 --> 0:09:03.850
<v Speaker 4>I mean, I'm not surprised on one level that the

0:09:03.890 --> 0:09:09.080
<v Speaker 4>Trump administration has intervened into this discussion. The e-safety regime

0:09:09.100 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 4>that we've had in place beforehand has also been criticised

0:09:11.300 --> 0:09:14.939
<v Speaker 4>by the Trump administration in some of the early executive orders. Clearly,

0:09:15.179 --> 0:09:18.910
<v Speaker 4>the United States understands the economic power of these large

0:09:18.950 --> 0:09:22.610
<v Speaker 4>platforms operating in different parts of the world, and there's

0:09:22.630 --> 0:09:25.949
<v Speaker 4>a clear alliance between big tech and the White House currently.

0:09:26.540 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 4>And that is manifesting in these kinds of discussions. We've

0:09:29.300 --> 0:09:31.439
<v Speaker 4>seen that in all sorts of contexts in relation to

0:09:31.460 --> 0:09:35.300
<v Speaker 4>the regulation of artificial intelligence, as well as social media platforms,

0:09:35.620 --> 0:09:38.570
<v Speaker 4>often which are the same companies, I should say. And

0:09:38.630 --> 0:09:41.290
<v Speaker 4>so I think there's a real sense that the White

0:09:41.330 --> 0:09:44.530
<v Speaker 4>House gets its support from large tech, that this is

0:09:44.570 --> 0:09:47.550
<v Speaker 4>the future of the American economy and American dominance and

0:09:47.570 --> 0:09:51.720
<v Speaker 4>American imperialism. And so a real concern around initiatives that

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.630
<v Speaker 4>seek to undermine the effectiveness of that business model and

0:09:54.650 --> 0:09:57.890
<v Speaker 4>the domination of US tech platforms around the world. I

0:09:58.410 --> 0:10:02.050
<v Speaker 4>think the reality is that the government probably expected something

0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:07.559
<v Speaker 4>like this, but also that most Australians expect their lawmakers

0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:10.819
<v Speaker 4>to make policy and law that suits them. So I

0:10:10.840 --> 0:10:14.300
<v Speaker 4>think it is important that the Albanese government consider what

0:10:14.320 --> 0:10:16.859
<v Speaker 4>it is that Australians want when they use this technology.

0:10:17.340 --> 0:10:20.420
<v Speaker 4>and not just give in to diplomatic pressure from a

0:10:20.440 --> 0:10:22.970
<v Speaker 4>White House that I don't think many Australians trust as

0:10:23.000 --> 0:10:24.089
<v Speaker 4>a source of good policy.

0:10:25.150 --> 0:10:27.130
<v Speaker 5>And so if Australia did do what the US is

0:10:27.290 --> 0:10:31.510
<v Speaker 5>asking and exempted American companies, what would actually be left

0:10:31.590 --> 0:10:32.230
<v Speaker 5>of this law?

0:10:32.670 --> 0:10:34.890
<v Speaker 4>So there is a large number of companies that will

0:10:34.910 --> 0:10:36.990
<v Speaker 4>be affected by the digital duty of care, but I

0:10:37.010 --> 0:10:39.410
<v Speaker 4>think it's fair to say When we're talking about the

0:10:39.429 --> 0:10:42.329
<v Speaker 4>digital duty of care, most people are thinking about large

0:10:42.390 --> 0:10:47.110
<v Speaker 4>social media companies that provide services, including as accessed by children.

0:10:47.150 --> 0:10:49.910
<v Speaker 4>That's quite clearly the framing of the legislation and particularly

0:10:49.970 --> 0:10:52.969
<v Speaker 4>design features that we talked about before in terms of

0:10:53.090 --> 0:10:56.530
<v Speaker 4>making sure that they're managed effectively as a component of

0:10:56.570 --> 0:10:58.890
<v Speaker 4>the digital duty of care, but also giving people user

0:10:58.929 --> 0:11:02.819
<v Speaker 4>empowerment tools. they're really aimed at social media platforms. So

0:11:03.480 --> 0:11:06.439
<v Speaker 4>I think if those companies were excluded, which I think

0:11:06.500 --> 0:11:09.550
<v Speaker 4>would be unlikely at this point, given the politics of it,

0:11:10.300 --> 0:11:12.970
<v Speaker 4>but if they were, I think it would greatly diminish

0:11:13.150 --> 0:11:16.689
<v Speaker 4>the utility of this legislative initiative. And I think it

0:11:16.710 --> 0:11:18.050
<v Speaker 4>would be a huge scandal.

0:11:20.309 --> 0:11:22.930
<v Speaker 5>And the government, it now has all of these submissions.

0:11:23.030 --> 0:11:26.350
<v Speaker 5>So When we do finally see that bill, what will

0:11:26.380 --> 0:11:29.170
<v Speaker 5>you be looking at to tell whether or not it

0:11:29.210 --> 0:11:32.470
<v Speaker 5>will be effective and whether pressure from the US and

0:11:32.710 --> 0:11:34.809
<v Speaker 5>tech companies has actually weakened it?

0:11:35.390 --> 0:11:37.910
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, so what I'll be looking for when this bill

0:11:37.950 --> 0:11:41.110
<v Speaker 4>is ultimately tabled is I'd love to see some statements

0:11:41.250 --> 0:11:44.030
<v Speaker 4>in what we call the extraneous materials, like the second

0:11:44.070 --> 0:11:47.589
<v Speaker 4>reading speech, the explanatory memorandum, that talk about rights, like

0:11:47.630 --> 0:11:50.209
<v Speaker 4>I mentioned before, like freedom of expression, freedom of the

0:11:50.270 --> 0:11:52.550
<v Speaker 4>press and the like. so that that can be balanced

0:11:52.690 --> 0:11:55.670
<v Speaker 4>as people who will have to interpret this legislation do

0:11:55.720 --> 0:12:01.319
<v Speaker 4>that work. I would really love to see some greater

0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:04.140
<v Speaker 4>consideration of how we can enforce this without putting too

0:12:04.179 --> 0:12:06.880
<v Speaker 4>much onus on the regulator and give courts a role.

0:12:06.940 --> 0:12:09.640
<v Speaker 4>I actually think courts have a really important job in

0:12:09.679 --> 0:12:12.050
<v Speaker 4>interpreting exactly some of the questions that we were talking

0:12:12.070 --> 0:12:15.350
<v Speaker 4>about before, how rights intersect with each other, but also

0:12:15.830 --> 0:12:19.310
<v Speaker 4>what might be considered harmful, how that reflects social values.

0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:22.020
<v Speaker 4>Courts are well placed to do that over time as

0:12:22.059 --> 0:12:24.880
<v Speaker 4>opposed to legislation which is enshrined in a particular moment.

0:12:25.460 --> 0:12:27.059
<v Speaker 4>And so I think if we start to see some

0:12:27.080 --> 0:12:30.440
<v Speaker 4>of those things implemented into the bill, then we'll know

0:12:30.480 --> 0:12:33.900
<v Speaker 4>that the government has decided that this is important enough,

0:12:34.280 --> 0:12:37.740
<v Speaker 4>I think, to risk the ire of the White House,

0:12:37.860 --> 0:12:41.690
<v Speaker 4>which I'm sure will still object, and really decide to

0:12:41.790 --> 0:12:45.710
<v Speaker 4>make a policy stand that many people have been campaigning

0:12:45.730 --> 0:12:48.690
<v Speaker 4>for for a long time and also many people expect

0:12:48.750 --> 0:12:50.949
<v Speaker 4>in the electorate. And this is going to be a

0:12:50.990 --> 0:12:52.390
<v Speaker 4>critical test for the government.

0:12:53.600 --> 0:12:55.250
<v Speaker 5>Lizzie, thank you so much for your time.

0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:56.280
<v Speaker 4>Thanks for having me.

0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:14.140
<v Speaker 2>Also in the news, the imam of a Melbourne mosque,

0:13:14.260 --> 0:13:16.320
<v Speaker 2>which has been linked to the pilot accused of trying

0:13:16.360 --> 0:13:19.580
<v Speaker 2>to hijack a FlyJubilee plane, has spoken out for the

0:13:19.620 --> 0:13:24.100
<v Speaker 2>first time. Referring to false allegations, Samir Matadi didn't directly

0:13:24.140 --> 0:13:27.040
<v Speaker 2>address the claims, but in a video posted on social

0:13:27.080 --> 0:13:31.120
<v Speaker 2>media said, the righteous will always be attacked. It's after

0:13:31.160 --> 0:13:34.610
<v Speaker 2>the United Arab Emirates Attorney General claimed the pilot had

0:13:34.630 --> 0:13:38.490
<v Speaker 2>started to drift towards extremism while studying in Melbourne and

0:13:38.510 --> 0:13:42.790
<v Speaker 2>became acquainted with people linked to the Broadmeadows Mosque. And

0:13:42.830 --> 0:13:45.070
<v Speaker 2>Barnaby Joyce has joined the Greens in calling for the

0:13:45.130 --> 0:13:48.590
<v Speaker 2>government to block Australians from watching the live stream execution

0:13:48.690 --> 0:13:51.949
<v Speaker 2>of a US prisoner. The former US Major, who fatally

0:13:51.990 --> 0:13:55.650
<v Speaker 2>shot 13 unarmed soldiers in 2009, is set to be

0:13:55.740 --> 0:13:59.760
<v Speaker 2>executed by firing squad in the US in December. Joyce

0:13:59.880 --> 0:14:03.200
<v Speaker 2>likened the execution to a Roman amphitheatre, saying he doesn't

0:14:03.220 --> 0:14:06.819
<v Speaker 2>agree with it. I'm Daniel James, thanks for listening to 7am.

0:14:07.440 --> 0:14:08.240
<v Speaker 2>We'll be back tomorrow.

0:14:08.260 --> 0:14:14.339
<v Speaker 4>Music you