Rita Panahi:
Joining me now is deputy executive director at The Institute of Public Affairs, Daniel Wild. Dan, what’s your assessment of this legislation?
Daniel Wild:
Well, exactly what you said there is spot on. This is going to be censorship. We know that. Now, when it comes to what the government is saying, they go, “Well, we’re protecting kids. We’re just giving you an option to default or log out of the algorithm.” And look, if they just do that as a toggle switch on your social media account, fine, that’s not a big deal, but as you mentioned quite rightly, they insert terms like “social harm” or “serious harm” and vague terms like this that they’ve used before. We’ve seen this with the misinformation and disinformation laws that they pulled from parliament because they were so unpopular.
And when you actually look at the discussion paper that’s been put out, it’s clear that what they want to do with this is they’re wanting Australians to get out of the algorithm and go into the Albarithm, because that’s what this is going to be. This is going to be Anthony Albanese and the Labour Party toggling your social media because they lost to One Nation in Western Australia. That’s what this is about. It’s just like when they lost the Voice to Parliament debate, they said, “Well, the reason people voted no is because they were misled. They were too dumb, or they were racist.” And that’s why they reckon people are voting for One Nation against Labour, because people are being subject to misinformation.
So this is going to be the single biggest attack to freedom of speech on the internet that we have seen in peacetime history in this country. This is going to be bigger than COVID because it’s going to be permanent in terms of what they’re embedding into their laws. So we’ll wait and see what exactly is in the draught legislation that they reckon they’ll release tomorrow, but this has got censorship written all over it.
Rita Panahi:
Dan, do we know if the Coalition is going to take a stand on this issue? Because in the past, they’ve been rather weak. Are they going to fight a tooth and nail or submit?
Daniel Wild:
Well, I think the Liberal Party will be no on it because if they’re not, they’re going to become politically extinct pretty fast. But you are right. They have been in favour of certain curtailments on freedom of speech. They were in favour of the under-16 social media ban as an example. They’ve been big supporters of Julie Inman Grant at the eSafety Commission. But I think on this topic, they’re probably going to oppose it pretty strongly. They did oppose the misinformation laws as well a couple of years ago.
Now, the key thing here though is not just opposing it, but as you’ve indicated, running a campaign on it. And I don’t mean just at election time. I mean on the substance of the issue, because make no mistake, this legislation will be defeated if there is a campaign to do so, because it will not hold up to scrutiny. Anthony Albanese or his communications minister, Anika “Ooshies” Wells, they’re not going to be able to defend these policies. Labour has never won an argument with the public. The only time they tried was with the Voice to Parliament and they got poleaxed. So if this is exposed to a genuine campaign against it, I guarantee you the government will back down.
Rita Panahi:
Well, have a listen to Communications Minister Anika Wells taking a break from using Ooshies to lecture us about Labor’s housing policies. And here she is of course pushing for greater online censorship.
Anika Wells:
The Coalition are blaming teachers for rising rates of misogyny amongst young men and boys, blaming teachers rather than looking at the toxic rabbit holes that social media are sending our young men and boys down. They can throw rocks at teachers, but we’ll be holding big tech to account.
Rita Panahi:
Dan, she talks there about saving young men from going down misogynistic rabbit holes. But why do I get the feeling that in Labor’s eyes, that includes fact-based information, messages around gender and masculinity?
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s right. I mean under these laws, the truth will be banned as well. I mean the truth will not be any defence. It’s just whether they like it or not. Now, what Anika Wells has said then is also misinformation. I mean, I don’t think anyone from the Coalition has ever said that teachers are to blame for toxic masculinity and misogyny. I mean, has anyone actually said that, or is she verballing people?
Rita Panahi:
Exactly.
Daniel Wild:
So I know, I mean, Matt Canavan had comments about concerns around what’s happening in schools and this negative approach that’s often taken to men and boys, which I think is 100% correct. But has anyone actually said that teachers are causing misogyny in our society? That’s never been said.
So Anika Wells is one of the chief purveyors of misinformation. So these politicians need to look at themselves. They are the ultimate hypocrites in all of this. I’m surprised that she actually managed to find the front yard of a school when she’s not in a corporate box, the AFL, getting funded by a taxpayer playing with her Ooshies or something. I mean, they’re just so far out of their depth, but they are playing with fire on this because the community does not support this. The community is aware now of what governments are doing. They saw it throughout COVID. They saw it through the Voice to Parliament. They saw it in the wake of Bondi, this rampant censorship that’s taking place. They can say whatever they want about it, but the community will see through this, and it will not be supported.
Rita Panahi:
We’re going to have more on Anika Wells and the Albanese government’s attempts at censorship a little later on the programme. But now to One Nation having a branch meeting in Sunbury, a suburb of Melbourne, cancelled last week due to safety reasons. It comes after the alleged bashing of a grandmother and One Nation volunteer in Queensland last month. That 60-year-old woman ended up having to be hospitalised with a broken rib. And One Nation’s Victorian Leader Warren Pickering said the party has already lost candidates due to threats of violence. Dan, Pauline Hanson has accused Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of inciting violence against her and her supporters last week. Tell me about this climate of fear that exists, that they’ve got candidates opting out because they are concerned for their safety.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah. Well, excitement’s a very strong word. I would say that he’s creating an environment where it’s okay to dehumanise other people that disagree with him, and Anthony Albanese has a track record of doing this. And certainly, that’s happened with One Nation where there are people including in government and in high levels of society that are saying or insinuating that Pauline Hanson, and therefore anybody who supports her or wants to work with her, is a threat to our democracy and a threat to our way of life. And this is the kind of rhetoric that people may take literally, and unfortunately, there are people out there who may act upon these kind of thoughts. So there is an obligation of those who are in power to make sure that they’re not creating an environment within which their words could be interpreted in such a manner.
But unfortunately, as you say, it’s already having an impact. It’s having a chilling effect. I suspect you’re quite right that there are potential candidates that would otherwise say, “Yeah, I’ll put my hand up for One Nation,” but then they’re worried about how they may be treated in public. Now, that doesn’t mean … People will say things, and that’s a part of democracy and part of being a candidate. I’m not saying that the kid gloves have to be put on, but I am saying that there is a line in the sand when it comes to dehumanising your political opponents and that’s something. Also, I will say that it was, I think the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, who engaged in this bizarre victim blaming of saying, “Well, Pauline Hanson should look at herself.” I mean, this is really not the kind of language that anyone should be engaging in.
Rita Panahi:
Particularly when it’s a female who’s facing these threats. And talking about victim blaming, we have Niki Savva on the ABC claiming that One Nation’s brand is all about inciting conflict in the community.
Niki Savva:
The brand of One Nation is, which is to increase the level of anger in the community, the level of division, and to incite conflict.
Rita Panahi:
Sounds like victim blaming to me, Dan, and I love that Niki Savva is the ABC’s version of a conservative. Her words echo this rant from Greens’ Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Sarah Hanson-Young:
How dare she play the victim. One Nation gets to trade in hate and division because it is expected. Pauline Hanson gets to say nasty things just about everybody without consequence. One Nation’s business model is “Hate thy neighbour.” But when she’s called out for this, Pauline Hanson, she cries the victim, says everyone’s ganging up on her. She hides from the media, only talks to those who praise her.
Rita Panahi:
That was really an extraordinary attack, Dan, when these women know that Pauline Hanson has credible death threats against her. There’s one alleged incident currently before the courts. As for Sarah Hanson-Young talking about friendly media, when’s the last time she appeared on News24 in the primetime slots? She hasn’t appeared on Bolt, Credlin, this programme as far as I know. What do you make of that commentary around Pauline Hanson?
Daniel Wild:
Well, I mean maybe the algorithm censorship is a good idea so I don’t have to see this stuff. I know maybe I could support it if we could … Maybe there’s a no Sarah Hanson-Young toggle they could put on there, and I could probably get around it actually.
But I mean this is just hypocrisy as you suggest, which is a lot of these politicians who say, “Oh, well, Pauline Hanson’s not fronting the media.” They themselves very rarely would front someone that’s going to put tough questions to them. I think the point about the women and the female angle is very interesting because if this was happening to a politician on the left who was receiving a similar level of threats or even scrutiny, and I think a lot of the scrutiny of Pauline Hanson in One Nation is totally justified. They’re a major player, and with being a major player is scrutiny. I think that’s totally fair enough. But even if the scrutiny was just applied to a left-wing party that was on the rise, you can imagine that the response would be very different. So as always, it’s the hypocrisy that annoys people so much about this and myself included.
Rita Panahi:
Now, let’s go to a credible story of Israeli athletes who were set to compete in a triathlon in Northern Ireland over the weekend that were banned from the race after organisers raised concerns about their participation. North West Triathlon Club said its stance was not directed at anyone because of their religion or ethnicity, but was a position, and I quote, “concerning representation of the State of Israel in international sport and the attempt to present normality on the international sporting stage while Palestinians continue to suffer.”
Dan, how would they want to dress it up? They banned Jews from Israel from competing. How they can rationalise that or say it has nothing to do with their religion or ethnicity I think is quite outrageous.
Daniel Wild:
Well, obviously, it does, and this is pretty concerning. Now, I hope that this is isolated and maybe it’s just a bunch of wokesters who are running the sort of HR marketing department of that particular competition that have hijacked it. But I mean, this is where things can go, unfortunately, where you have a group of people that are singled out and demonised and people think it’s fair game just to continue to do that. And it is actually quite unsettling that it involves sport as well. Sport is something that should bring people together. It should be free of politics. I know that it could never be completely free probably, but as far as we can, it should be free of politics and all these other things that we have to deal with in our life. So how else can you interpret this other than an incredibly divisive intervention into that particular competition?
Rita Panahi:
Daniel Wild, thank you so much for your time.
This transcript with Daniel Wild talking on The Rita Panahi Show – News24 from 7 September 2026 has been edited for clarity.
