Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Hansard source

The principle of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should underpin everything we do here. The fact that you sit here in the centre of this chamber, Deputy Speaker Vasta, from an elevated position, with a degree of authority, indicates that you are not here to be the arbiter of one side or the other but that you are to represent a fair and honest debate without fear or favour. That is a role that you, personally, take very seriously. I know you do, as do most of our deputy speakers.

The flags that adorn this chamber are representative of our great and free country that many men and women have given their lives for in one way or another. Some may not have directly died in defence of that democracy, but they have given their lives in the pursuit of that democratic power and that principle that we have as a country. It's something that is near and dear to my heart.

I believe in protecting our hard-fought freedoms, and the right to free speech is one of our most cherished. It's not a freedom that we've won lightly. It stands on the sacrifices of generations of men and women who have given everything to protect it. They stood up, unwavering, against those who would strip it away from us. Their courage has afforded us the right to live, to think and to speak freely. It's our duty to honour their legacy, this principle, and to fiercely protect these rights for the generations who follow. We cannot yield. We cannot allow a backwards step. The consequences would be deeply troubling for a nation that prides itself on that democracy and those principles.

For those of us who hold freedom of speech dear, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is deeply troubling at best. It represents a line that we cannot, as a nation, afford to cross. It is a bill that, simply, is an attack on our right to speak freely and to think freely. It's an attack on our right to hear the voices of our fellow Australians and to engage in ideas even when they're uncomfortable and even when they're controversial. It's an attack on our right to make informed choices for ourselves.

The government is proposing that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, be granted sweeping powers to oversee or to penalise digital platforms. ACMA would be authorised to decide if digital platforms have taken 'adequate steps' to control misinformation and disinformation. If a platform's actions are deemed inadequate, they could face significant fines of up to five per cent of their global revenue. Imagine the pressure that this would place on companies, effectively forcing them to police or to censor or to change what Australians can say online simply to avoid financial ruin. This power is a slippery slope. To avoid punishment, platforms are likely to overcorrect—to silence far more of the content than is necessary in order to comply. When we restrict speech to such a degree, we deny Australians the right to voice their views freely.

One of the fundamental issues here is the broad and vague language around what constitutes misinformation. Under this bill, misinformation doesn't have to be deliberately false or malicious. It simply has to be reasonably verifiable as misleading and potentially able to cause serious harm. But serious harm, in itself, is undefined in any meaningful way.

The reason robust societies protect the open exchange of ideas is important. History has shown us that censoring opinions or dismissing them as harmful ends badly for a society. It leads to a climate of fear, to a reluctance to share ideas and, ultimately, to a society that is less capable of growth or resilience.

In this digital age Australians aren't just sharing photos or news. They're exchanging ideas to critique the decisions of those in power and to stand up for what they believe in. This bill risks silencing all of that. It's telling Australians, 'You can speak, but only if you toe the government line and you say what we like.'

The impact of this bill extends far beyond the online world. Consider the communications minister's power to initiate misinformation investigations or hearings under this bill. The minister would have the authority to direct ACMA to investigate digital platforms or order public hearings. The only restriction on this power is that it cannot be directed at a single end user. Beyond that, the minister can decide the terms of those investigations. This is a sweeping and deeply concerning power, one that could be misused to influence debate or silence critics under the guise of controlling so-called misinformation.

If that isn't enough cause for concern, the bill includes further exemptions that highlight a double standard. Academics, scientists, artists and even satirical commentary are all protected under this legislation, but ordinary Australians aren't. That is a double standard that I cannot live with. In other words, the government's saying those who are deemed to be professionals or who create content within approved spheres are allowed freedom of speech. However the rest of us are expected to stay within the bounds of the government's deemed definition of 'safe'. This distinction is one that fundamentally undermines the principle of equal free speech for all Australians, irrespective of their position in society.

It doesn't end there. Professional news content produced by mainstream media is also exempt from this legislation. So if a major newspaper publishes an article with a particular viewpoint, it is safe from being labelled as misinformation. But if ordinary Australians do the same, then it could be considered under this bill. It's not fair. This two-tiered system essentially suggests that mainstream media is more credible than the voices of Australians. That's not right. This puts professional journalists in a separate category—many of us may consider they are already—shielding them from the rules that could restrict their content on personal platforms. But it does not protect the average Australian sharing the same information. This is an approach that does not respect Australians, their intelligence or their right to engage in a variety of opinions.

This bill also extends ACMA's powers significantly, allowing it to demand documents and information from individuals associated with digital platforms. The penalties for failing to comply are harsh. The powers that cast a wide net will create a culture of fear that discourages robust and honest discussion.

My key responsibility in this place is to fiercely, honestly and succinctly represent the views of those living across my electorate. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Therefore it's no surprise that the response to this bill in my electorate has been swift and significant. I've received phone calls and emails. People have stopped me in the street. People are angry.

Here's what some of them have said. Laszlo Faludi from Ulverston said:

As a swing voter, the threat to democracy posed by this bill is alarming. I value my freedom to post online and fear that this legislation will severely restrict it. The threat to freedom of speech, the looming censorship, and the increased powers of the government, particularly the ACMA, are issues that cannot be ignored. The potential consequences of this bill on public discourse and the open exchange of ideas are troubling.

Lynn Dunhan from Spreyton said:

It is essential that we protect our democratic values and ensure that legitimate concerns and differing opinions are not silenced by government intervention.

I agree with you, Lynn.

Stuart Greig from Penguin told me:

I have even less faith in ACMA's ability to oversee such powers in a balanced manner than I do in the sincerity of the proponents.

I'm with you, Stuart, on that one. He went on to say:

Australia does not need a Ministry of Truth—

well said—

particularly not one staffed by Canberra ideologues. It is always disappointing when government believes the answer lies in more legislation and regulation. Repealing legislation or reducing government interference is never an option apparently.

Paul Jacques from Wynyard said:

The broad definitions of misinformation and serious harm, coupled with severe penalties for non-compliance, are likely to result in over-censorship on digital platforms.

Wayne Spradbury from Trial Harbour said:

I urge you to reconsider the impact of this bill on our democracy and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. It is essential that any measures to combat misinformation and disinformation are balanced, transparent, and respectful of individual liberties.

Tony Downey from Leith said:

The definitions of misinformation and serious harm in this bill are overly broad and vague, leading to a high risk of over-censorship.

Anne Brewer from Ulverstone simply said:

Isn't this what China does?

I think you're onto something, Anne.

That list goes on—lists of legitimate complaints and concerns. People are deeply troubled and angry. This government doesn't seem to get that. This is a bill, at its core, that is supposed to be about preventing harm. It's about control. It's about so-called standards. The good thing about standards is there are so many standards to choose from. Which one do we choose? The Albanese government wants to decide what Australians can see, what they can say and, ultimately, what they can think. This approach is fundamentally at odds with the values of free and open democracy. Australia does not need a government approved version of the truth. We need a population equipped with critical thinking skills, a society that encourages open debate and a culture that allows its people to question authority without fear.

This bill is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that can't be solved through censorship. Australians deserve to be heard. Australians deserve to hear from each other. Australians don't deserve to be silenced. We can't silence anybody; it hurts all. It takes away our chance for debate, to question and to grow. Speaker, if you haven't gleaned it already, my position's fairly clear. The coalition's position is fairly clear. The voices of my electorate are very clear. I vigorously oppose this bill and the Albanese government's attempt to tell Australians what they can and cannot say. Freedom of speech is not just a right. It is at the foundation of our country, and we must hold it dear.

For 20 years of my life, I held a rifle in defence of this country, under that flag that I talked about earlier. I was in a corps—the Royal Australian Corps of Signals. On our badge is Mercury, the Roman runner of the gods. In his hand, he has the caduceus, intertwined with two serpents. Those serpents and that caduceus indicate truth. We are required in the military, in the signal corps, to deliver the truth irrespective of the content. That person that receives that message might not like the content, but the validity of that content is important. If we go changing that, if we go censoring that and if we go changing the context of that, then people die. I'm very fearful as I stand here, should this bill look anywhere near passing, that our democracy will die with it. I condemn this bill.

See this speech in context