When Communications Minister Anika Wells appeared on television on Sunday to put the case for the government's digital duty of care bill, she did not just offer the opposition an olive branch. She brought the whole tree.
Yet, rather than negotiating a mutually acceptable compromise, Angus Taylor's Coalition effectively chose to chop it down. The opposition has rejected the legislation before the ink on the exposure draft even dried.
By refusing to engage with a framework that holds tech giants accountable for algorithmic harms, the Coalition has missed a crucial opportunity to demonstrate that it operates as a mature, alternative government - its best answer to the rise of One Nation.
The draft laws spell out online conduct that constitutes serious harm and give the minister the power to designate additional serious harm that tech platforms must mitigate. The measures aim to shift responsibility onto big tech to proactively reduce foreseeable harm or face fines of more than $100 million.
Opposition figures have raised concerns about the "defects" in the bill and Mr Taylor warned it was a "blank cheque for political censorship". But by ignoring the minister's professed willingness to negotiate, the Coalition risks being seen as intent on political wedging rather than the hard work of shaping vital public policy.
The core of their objections remains valid. A conservative party should absolutely scrutinise broad ministerial discretion, particularly when legislation touches on freedom of speech. Given the draft bill currently delegates the definition of harm to a regulator, questions about possible government overreach are legitimate.
However, the Coalition's rhetoric has gone beyond the necessary healthy scepticism towards hysteria and ignores the user-empowering mechanisms embedded in the proposed laws. The much-touted "My Feed, My Way" initiative does not empower the government to censor content.
Instead, it empowers adult users to opt out of the algorithm entirely and return to a chronological feed of their chosen friends and interests.
The Coalition's panic over censorship clashes directly with a policy that returns control to individuals. More concerning than the hyperbole is the opposition's refusal to test the government's flexibility and undertakings to compromise.
Minister Wells has said she remains open to amending the legislation to secure broad support. The government is already negotiating with the Greens, committing recently to require platforms to disclose algorithmic logic to the eSafety Commissioner.
If Mr Taylor genuinely worries that a minister under the new laws would hold too much discretionary power, the parliamentary solution sits in plain sight. The opposition could negotiate an amendment that embeds the definitions of harm directly into the primary legislation, forcing Parliament to vote on them.
Instead, the Coalition refuses to even sit at the negotiating table. This stance suggests the opposition roots its objections less in principle than in a desire for a political brawl.
An effective opposition does not just say no to complex problems. It brings better solutions to the table. By walking away, the Coalition effectively cedes all negotiating power to the Greens and the crossbench.
If the final bill passes with input exclusively from the progressive wing of Parliament, the legislation will likely reflect fewer conservative values. The Coalition will have no one to blame but itself.
By choosing outrage over negotiation, Angus Taylor misses a golden opportunity to shape legacy legislation, secure robust protections for free speech and prove to the electorate that his party stands ready to govern.
