Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Banks. Misinformation will be one of the greatest issues of the current century, and while misinformation and disinformation have always existed, the internet has put the power and impact of misinformation and disinformation into the hands of every man, woman, girl and boy. With each year, fewer young people can distinguish between trusted and non-trusted sources of truth, and even then, trust in traditional media is at an all-time low. As the Minister for Communications has been at pains to point out, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which was released as an exposure draft in June, is a reform that was in fact begun by the previous coalition government. Four years ago the coalition released a report titled Regulating in the digital age, which set out a road map for action responding to the ACCC's Digital Platforms Inquiry of July 2019. In that report the coalition recognised:

The risks posed by disinformation and an erosion of news quality highlight the importance of collective and coordinated action by industry, civil society and governments. This includes the creation of a strong and sustainable news media ecosystem alongside educational initiatives for citizens to improve their ability to engage critically with online news and information sources.

It went on:

The Government recognises the need to balance any interventions that might target media literacy and disinformation with rights to freedom of expression and speech. It is important that Australia's approach aligns with and supports global initiatives.

That report committed:

The Government will ask the major digital platforms to develop a voluntary code (or codes) of conduct for disinformation and news quality.

It provided that:

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will have oversight of the codes and report to Government on the adequacy of platforms' measures and the broader impacts of disinformation.

Importantly, it went on:

The codes will address concerns regarding disinformation and credibility signalling for news content and outline what the platforms will do to tackle disinformation on their services and support the ability of Australians to discern the quality of news and information. The codes will be informed by learnings of international examples, such as the European Union Code of Practice on Disinformation.

The Labor Party has picked up this work, post the election, and taken it down a heavy-handed, authoritarian and unthoughtful route. While the coalition believes there is an issue to be tackled, this bill is not how it should be done. Lazy in its wording, the bill would operate to have significant negative repercussions on industry, public discourse and the inherent values of freedom of speech which we hold dear to our way of life.

The government has succeeded in something I thought impossible: unifying commentators in declaring this bill to be ill-thought out, utterly unfit for purpose and a danger to the freedom-of-expression based democracy in which we live. In its current wording, the bill states that misinformation is 'false, misleading or deceptive' conduct that is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm, and yet there is no definition for 'serious harm'. For 'misinformation' there is no requirement for someone making this content to understand that it is false or have an intention to deceive. This is unlike 'disinformation', where there needs to be a proven intent to deceive. In other words, if you believe something is correct but it is not by the definition of what is correct according to this bill it could be characterised as 'misinformation'.

As the Law Council of Australia says in their submission on the bill:

… the everyday experience of the courts or commissions of inquiry shows that discerning truth from falsehood in a procedurally fair manner may be an elaborate, costly and time-consuming process. The statutory supposition that this can be done readily, uncontroversially, and with little effort by ACMA or by digital platform services seems unrealistic in light of real-life experiences …

What is more concerning is the classification of what is 'correct information'. Under the proposed wording in the bill any authorised content from the government is considered not to be misinformation, but it's very utterance by government defines it as being correct. Any statement critiquing the government authorised content, including statements made by member of the public or other politicians in fact, could be considered to be misinformation.

ACMA, best known for its deft management of spectrum, has been given significant powers, including to be able to have information-gathering powers on not just digital platforms but on individuals who express their views on digital platforms. Only exempted voices are able to contradict an official government statement, limited to professional news content sources, educational institutions or for the purposes of satire or entertainment. This sounds draconian because it is. The bill should be binned.

See this speech in context