As it happened: Labor fast-track social media ban; Richard White apologises at WiseTech AGM

If the government wanted to tackle the issue, it must focus on the business models of social media companies, she said.

Under the proposed laws, the communications watchdog would be given powers to monitor and regulate content on digital platforms. Social media companies would be put on notice for failing to address deliberate lies spread on their platforms.

However, the regulator wouldn’t have the authority to issue take-down notices for individual posts as the bill focuses on systemic issues in the online sphere.

The legislation has already been lashed by the opposition and members of the crossbench as an attack on free speech. But the Greens’ decision to block the bill puts the final nail in the coffin, sending another Labor proposal into political purgatory.

AAP

Dutton has largely dismissed concerns about the high cost of nuclear by pointing to the expense of the extra poles and wires needed to connect renewables to the grid. On FiveAA on Friday, he conceded that nuclear reactors would include “a big upfront capital cost, and we’ll release that detail shortly”.

He also backed the criticism led by former prime minister John Howard and former treasurer Peter Costello of the federal government’s proposal to have the $230 billion Future Fund favour investment in housing, renewable energy and cybersecurity infrastructure.

Earlier this afternoon, Chalmers accused Costello of being trapped in the past and being rolled into a “deliberately unhinged” attack.

Earlier on Friday, Dutton said: “The government now is accessing this money for political reasons and I think it’s a disaster.”

“I considered it would have been irresponsible and negligent for me, as a leader of the organisation, to abandon any involvement, provide no guidance, walk away, say it was ‘not my problem’ and leave everyone else to their own devices,” he told the inquiry on Friday afternoon.

“I accept that, through the lens of the legal notion of apprehended bias, I have been found to have made a mistake, for which I am solely responsible. I got that balance wrong. We’re now setting about putting that right.”

Brereton maintained there was a difference between real bias and the inspector’s finding of “apprehended bias”, where a reasonable observer might believe a decision maker is not impartial.

“There is no suggestion of actual bias, nor of any intentional impropriety,” he said. “There is no reflection on my integrity, the mistake is characterised by the inspector as an error of judgment.”

Watch live below to see NACC Inspector Gail Furness testify from 2.45pm.

AAP

In response, Croft said: “We endeavour to deliver our forecasts with all of our suppliers and, where we would not deliver that, we would seek to understand what that is. We go to great lengths to try and understand where we think individual categories will be, but we don’t always get those forecasts right.”

ACCC deputy chairman Mick Keogh then interrupted and said Croft had not answered the question.

“The question was quite specific about the nature of the contractual obligation. You talked about a lot of factors that might be the reason why Coles doesn’t meet that commitment, but you didn’t answer the question about whether it is a legally binding contractual obligation on Coles,” he said.

Croft said she couldn’t add anything more. Coles’ lawyer, Michael Borsky, SC, jumped in, and pointed out the ACCC already has the contractual documents, and that Croft isn’t a lawyer.

Sharp continued her questioning, and Croft started responding by saying Coles has long-term partnerships, but was interrupted again by Sharp, who tried many times to ask if a “commitment” meant something legally binding. This back and forth went on for a while. Sharp asked: “Why won’t you answer my question, Ms Croft?”

Borsky interrupted again. “Chair, I object to the continuation of this line of questioning. It’s impossible that the answers could be of assistance to the inquiry.”

Keogh said this was noted. “I also note that it is an obligation on the witness to answer questions. Perhaps we’ll leave it here for the moment, but we may come back to it.”

The inquiry has adjourned now for lunch, and will return at 2pm AEDT.

“Furthermore, the government’s approach will likely require each app provider to collect personal identification or biometric data from all Australians in order to prevent under 16s from accessing their services, an inefficient and burdensome process for everyone.”

The spokesman said parents need clear, efficient ways to oversee the many apps their children use.

“That’s why we’ve proposed legislation that requires parental approval and age verification at the operating system and app store level, which reduces the burden and minimises the amount of sensitive information shared.”