Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ruby Sahota

Liberal on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-29

123 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Pat Kelly (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, in different parts of her speech, the member described some online harms that are criminal acts. As she said, they do not require changes in law. There is harmful content online that involves terrorism, fomenting hatred, threats and death threats, and these kinds of things are already serious crimes. When a serious crime is committed, a person should be sent straight to the police and prosecuted. The Liberals would make this commission a separate new structure, but should we not have more efficient enforcement of our existing laws?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 96 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Claims 48%Reasoning 41%Positioning 11%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 59 wordsas I mentioned, the increase in these types of situations has been severe over the last 10 to 12 years, with more people in these online spaces and the changes that have happened to social media.¹ This bill would augment the work of law enforcement. It would not hinder it. It would help support the work they are doing. Reasoning · 51 wordsGiving this commission a clear threshold and removing this type of harmful content online would, as I mentioned in my speech, help victims not be revictimized while the police are doing investigations and the work they need to do when criminal thresholds have been met and criminal charges can be laid. Positioning · 13 wordsThis would complement the work of law enforcement, and they welcome this change.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 86

2 of 2 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “This would complement the work of law enforcement,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and they welcome this change.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 100

0 of 2 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 1

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“the increase in these types of situations has been severe over the last 10 to 12 years”The increase in the number of harmful online situations has been severe over the last 10 to 12 years.search

Analysed on 2026-10-31