Labor’s Digital Duty of Care censorship bill can’t be fixed. Here’s One Nation’s chief of staff explaining why.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger says a meeting with two government staffers at Australia’s Parliament House exposed what he sees as a troubling lack of understanding about proposed censorship legislation. According to Shellenberger, the staffers argued the government needed greater powers to censor violent content online, including footage relating to the upcoming execution of Nidal Hasan. When he questioned why such material should be censored, he says the justification shifted to concerns about "copycat" violence, but staffers struggled to explain how the proposed powers would be applied consistently. Shellenberger also claims the staffers were unaware the bill could allow government agencies to operate anonymous bot accounts and conduct online information campaigns. Despite being presented with concerns about provisions they had not previously considered, he says they stressed that the government intended to proceed with the legislation regardless. He argues the proposed laws would grant broad powers to censor content depicting violent events, including material that may be newsworthy and in the public interest. Shellenberger believes this creates a significant risk of political misuse and reduced transparency. "The most alarming part," Shellenberger said, "was watching people defend a bill they appeared not to have read, while insisting it was necessary."

Nothing can fix Labor’s censorship bill. They’re losing the debate so now they want to change the rules.