Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge the member for Braddon and that outstanding speech that he gave. I want to acknowledge the service that he has given our country, as well as all members in this House that have worn the uniform of the ADF. The member for Braddon has so succinctly put the importance of fighting this bill and has linked it back to the service that he's provided, particularly in the signals corps. The signal corps is all about communication, as he just indicated, and he spoke about the badge that he wore on his hat and the importance of truth. I think that that's a lesson that everybody in this chamber can really take some notice of today.

I share the member for Braddon's disgust in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and I want to take a few moments now to talk about my concerns. We as members of this place are in a privileged position. We're in a very wealthy country. We have a lot of freedoms, but, as they say, freedom ain't free. I'm trying to get my bearings here—help me out, member for Braddon—but there are 103,000 men and women just down the road who we've acknowledged paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, as 27 million Australians. Freedom is not free. They fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can stand up and speak our mind.

I may not like what the member for North Sydney says, but I'll defend her right to say it. I may not like what the member for Scullin says—I probably won't; that's a pretty safe bet—but I will defend his right to say it. What really concerns me about this bill is this undercurrent that the government knows best, because government will ultimately be the arbiter as to what is truth, or what they perceive to be truth, and what they perceive to be fiction.

Like the member for Braddon, I'm going to spend a few moments reading through some of the submissions and the hundreds and hundreds of emails and messages that I've received. I don't remember too many other bills that have come before this place that have inspired such a visceral response from my constituents. Very few of them have been supportive.

As Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World, 'Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.' For 124 years, Australia has been the envy of the world, a beacon for freedom and a bastion of democracy and prosperity, but the decisions that we make in this place either increase or inhibit those freedoms. This legislation puts those very freedoms at risk. I think this bill that we're debating, the so-called combatting misinformation and disinformation bill, is one of the most flawed pieces of legislation that I have had to debate in my eight years in this place.

Last year, the government was forced into a humiliating backdown after Australians overwhelmingly rejected the bill. More than 20,000 submissions and comments were made by Australians in opposition to this bill. I can't remember having seen that sort of response from Australians. Australians tend to say, 'She'll be right, mate.' Unfortunately, I don't think Australians really get too uptight as much as I'd like them to. But, on this bill, they have certainly seen the red flags and they've been motivated.

Instead of listening to the Australian people and binning the bill, Labor have come back with this second iteration, and it is a shocker. This bill is like putting lipstick on a pig. This new version of the bill gives the regulator, ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, powers to require digital platforms that take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. They will determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to five per cent of the company's global turnover. Do you reckon that's going to make the platforms sit up and take notice? You bet it will.

No-one disputes that misinformation and disinformation pose threats to social cohesion and democratic resilience. I am the deputy chair of the PJCIS and the deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee. No-one knows that better than I do, perhaps with the exception of the member for Braddon. I know the important role that information warfare plays in national security and our offensive and defensive capabilities. We know that our competitors and organised crime gangs are using AI and online platforms to sow discord, spread disinformation, and impact on the results of elections. We've seen that just today, with reports about Russia trying to influence the outcome of the presidential elections today. We've seen leaked reports from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service of the Chinese Communist Party trying to influence the last two federal elections in Canada. This is not make-believe stuff. This is happening in the world today, as we speak. We in Australia would be very naive if we thought that it wasn't happening here. It's happening in the States, it's happening in Canada and you'd better believe it's also happening here.

With that caution, widescale public censorship cannot be the solution. As the former deputy chief health officer Professor Nick Coatsworth said:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse … to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate.

As the Victorian Bar Association put it, 'It is better to fight information with information and to attempt to persuade, rather than to coerce people.' What we're talking about in this legislation isn't about defence. It inhibits dialogue and it is dystopian. It's the stuff of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's Huxley's Brave New World. We're talking about the age of Big Brother, the age of the thought police, a government-run ministry of truth determining what is real and what is not. As Huxley wrote, 'Reality cannot be ignored, except at a price.'

Which reality will bureaucrats and this Labor government decide is misinformation? If I attest that Israel has the right to defend its very existence against a network of terror regimes, will I be cancelled? If I argue that nuclear energy will secure cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy long into the future, will I be hauled before Labor's ministry of truth? If the decisions and the politics of this government are any guide, then these kinds of genuinely held beliefs and empirical truths would be captured under the misinformation laws. Huxley, again, said, 'Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.' The censorship of free speech, whether fact or fiction, is fundamentally wrong.

As I said, very few proposals from the federal government have raised the ire and concern of everyday Australians. I spoke earlier about some of the concerns that my constituents have raised with me. Lynda from Peachester told me:

I am worried about the impact this bill will have on my freedom to post online, my freedom of speech, and the threat of censorship.

Marilyn from Currimundi wrote:

This bill poses a serious threat to democracy, freedom of speech, and grants excessive powers to the government.

As Jacob from Landsborough said:

This bill is nothing less than an assault on the free speech of everyday Australians.

And, as Carol from Little Mountain put so well:

It is crucial that we protect the open exchange of ideas and opinions, even those that may be controversial or unpopular.

The Australian people have had their say. They want the parliament to bin this bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, if, after all of that, you're still not convinced—and I reckon you are—then let me explain why this legislation is so flawed. The legislation imposes big fines on digital platforms who don't comply with the relevant rules, codes or standards, but that is a decision made by ACMA. I am absolutely no fan of social media platforms. I have been taking them on since 2016, ever since the death of Dolly Everett. They've failed to keep kids safe online. They've failed to protect our most vulnerable. They've failed to show the transparency and accountability that Australians and Australian businesses expect and demand. But this legislation does nothing more than to incentivise overregulation and overcensorship online. In order to avoid the risk of fines, it would make sense for digital platforms to censor content which ACMA may see as misinformation or disinformation. In so doing, it is likely that the platforms will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians so that they don't cop those big fines—five per cent of their global annual turnover. Do you reckon they're going to be a bit gun-shy? Worse still, the minister has the power to exclude any platform from these obligations, so a digital site that supports the government could be excluded as a result. Once again, this Labor government shows that it's owned lock, stock and barrel by big tech and the big end of town.

One of the most contentious elements of the legislation is the vagueness in some of the key definitions, as the member for Braddon so eloquently put in his speech. Most concerning is the broad definition of 'misinformation'. As it stands, this definition captures the opinions of Australians which are held in a good faith. That could have catastrophic outcomes for the freedom of speech and political communication in our country.

Religious freedom is the example that immediately springs to mind. As the shadow minister for communications put so well, 'Spirituality is the domain of the individual, not the state.' Yet these laws give the federal government and overzealous digital providers the power to decide which speech, including which religious speech, is reasonable. In their submission on the bill, a group of faith leaders said that providers will be 'empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself'. The Australian Catholic Bishops conference noted in their submission that judges could then be required to adjudicate on the reasonableness of religious expression. The idea that big tech and government will be made the arbiters of truth and reasonable religious expression isn't just a matter for people of faith; it is something for all Australians to be very concerned about.

I'm no particular ally of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. I think this is probably the only time I've ever agreed with them on anything. But, on this occasion, even the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

The government's role as an intellectual arbiter of the truth in social and political debate must be constricted, if not completely denied.

It flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of law, our human rights obligations and the separation of church and state. From philosophical, public procedural and policy perspectives, this bill misses the mark completely. It is philosophically un-Australian, and it must be rejected.

See this speech in context