Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. In the 2½ years since I've been elected, I've had a lot—hundreds and hundreds; probably thousands—of emails from constituents, but I have been completely overwhelmed by the number of emails and meetings and correspondence that I've had in relation to misinformation and disinformation.

This bill is a revised version of the exposure draft misinformation bill, which was published and then withdrawn in what we say was a humiliating backdown last year by the Minister for Communications, and it followed overwhelming opposition from a wide range of groups, including human rights groups, civil liberties groups, leading lawyers and proponents of free speech. More than 20,000 Australians made submissions and comments opposing that original bill. While this bill has the stated aim of reducing the spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms, there are so many flaws in this bill. It has not been well thought out. We've heard from a broad cross-section of sitting members in this place about their issues with this, and I think that the communications minister—with all due respect—needs to go back to the drawing board.

It's unclear, for example, whether the bill will operate in a manner compatible with Australia's international human rights obligations related to freedom of expression. The definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' create some uncertainty as to the breadth of content that is captured. The bill introduces supposed transparency requirements for certain digital communication platforms related to misinformation and disinformation, including obligations to publish information on risk management actions, media literacy plans and complaints processes. However, the bill provides the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, with new powers to create digital platform rules that require digital communication platforms to report and keep records on certain matters related to misinformation and disinformation, providing ACMA with a graduated set of powers in relation to the development and registration of industry misinformation codes and misinformation standards. What we have here is a lot of power being put into a bureaucracy.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry, with a reporting date of 25 November 2024. Both the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised concerns with this bill. While the stated purpose is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to facilitate the introduction of rules, requirements, codes and standards for digital communication platform providers, aiming to reduce the spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation, as always with legislation, the devil is very much in the detail. The bill is supposed to respond to recommendations made in a 2021 review of the voluntary industry Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. As I've said before, it's supposed to be a refined version of an earlier exposure draft bill that was released by the Labor government last year.

There is significant concern in my electorate, as I've highlighted, as well as throughout our country and internationally, about misinformation. The University of Canberra published the Digital news report earlier this year and found that 75 per cent of Australians are concerned about online misinformation. That was up from 65 per cent in 2016 and well above the global average of 54 per cent. The Human Rights Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on the role of states in countering the negative impact of disinformation on the enjoyment and realisation of human rights.

We live in a world now that is very different to that of previous generations, where people received their news through hardcopy newspapers and magazines. These days, most of the under-30s that I know, for example, have never looked at a broadsheet newspaper, unless they have been down to their grandparents' house. Similarly, they don't even follow those news platforms on their phone. They are far more inclined to pick up all of their news through various social noticeboards or through Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and various other platforms. That means that we are living in a very different world. As policymakers we have to look at what is and is not acceptable to be on these platforms, having regard to the overwhelming desire that we have for freedom of speech. This is an issue that the former coalition government dealt with. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's digital platforms inquiry in 2019, for example, highlighted the significant risks posed by increasing prevalence of misinformation and disinformation shared on digital platforms.

Speaking of recent contemporary events, I think we particularly saw a level of fear through the pandemic. There were certainly levels of significant misinformation and disinformation put out during that period. Like me, Deputy Speaker Freelander, you no doubt receive emails from constituents and from people who aren't constituents about a range of concerns that they have. They can be referred to as conspiracy theories. They can relate to everything from 5G to chemtrails and things like that. This is a serious issue, and it certainly needs to be addressed.

On our side we say that there are probably three or four key issues that we have with the government's proposed legislation. First of all, it acts as incentive for digital platforms to regulate free speech. We say this because digital platforms risk big fines if they do not comply with digital platform rules or industry codes and misinformation standards. ACMA will determine whether or not a digital platform is compliant with the legislation. That, I think, causes concern when it is just one bureaucracy that is looking at whether or not something is misinformation or disinformation. In doing so, it is likely that the platforms themselves will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians.

There is also a very broad definition of 'misinformation'. The bill captures opinions that are held in good faith. There is no requirement that the maker of the statement is acting maliciously or setting out to deceive people. If something is considered to be 'reasonably verifiable' as misleading and 'reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm', it can be captured as misinformation. So I think there is an issue when there does not need to be any intent proven in regard to the misinformation.

There is also concern around the broad definition of 'serious harm'. A large amount of material could be captured as serious harm because some of the topics on which misinformation can be encapsulated as serious harm include elections, referendums, public health and preventive health measures and imminent harm to the economy or financial markets. So material on a broad range of topics could be encapsulated and then, in fact, shut down by social media platforms.

Another concern is the level of power that this gives the minister. The communications minister has existing powers which could now be used under this bill to order ACMA to conduct specific investigations under the misinformation bill. The minister could also order public hearings. The only constraint on that power is it:

… cannot relate to particular content posted on a digital communications platform by a single end-user identifiable by the ACMA.

So the power seems to be very wide and potentially very open to political abuse. We say that this is completely inconsistent with basic democratic values. The minister under this bill also has power to exempt digital platforms. A digital site that has politics perhaps less favoured by whichever government is in power at the time could be excluded simply on the basis that the government of the day does not like its particular politics.

I turn to some of the comments that have come through to me from my constituents. As I said, I was quite overwhelmed by the volume of correspondence on this one issue. It's probably the most correspondence I've had on any one piece of government legislation in 2½ years. I will iterate some of them. Robert from Illawong said:

The threat of severe penalties for digital platform providers who do not comply is alarming and is likely to result in over-censorship.

Damian from Engadine said:

The … Bill compromises the integrity of social media by granting the eSafety Commissioner increased authority, which has been used to further censor content in response to X Corp's principled stance.

David from Engadine said:

Another concern is the definitions of the terms "Serious Harm", "Misinformation", "Disinformation" and "Truth". Who decides what these terms apply to, and indeed, whether they can even be adequately defined in practice?

These definitions are highly subjective, and who decides what is or is not truth in these times?

Lance from Alfords Point said:

This, in my mind and most of my friends, is the most dangerous and Orwellian Bill put forward in Australia. This is a direct assault on our freedom of speech and by default on our freedom.

Tracey from Wattle Grove said:

This Bill would further constrain free speech, going against the principles of the Internation Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Paul from Illawong said:

The Bill could suppress conservative, religious or minority viewpoints on various issues.

Andrew from Bonnet Bay said:

This bill appears to have the sole purpose of suppressing criticism of government.

Ross from Bangor said:

Civil penalties against digital platforms may stifle public discourse and disproportionately affect certain viewpoints.

Tanya from Woronora said:

The government needs to stop attacking our liberties and freedoms and trying to "protect" us by introducing legislation that threatens the very heart of our democracy that our ancestors fought so hard for us to enjoy.

Sarah from Jannali said:

I am concerned about the Government and mainstream media being exempt—

from this bill.'

Jackie from Sutherland said:

This bill represents complete government overreach. More than that, it is a path to authoritarianism.

Marjon from Como said:

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of a free and fair society. It is a fundamental value of Australia. Despite denials to the contrary, the proposed bill will erode this fundamental human right.

Steve from Bangor said:

The draft exposure says it is about keeping Australians safe from "harm". But the government will cause harm by silencing Australians! The Commonwealth is responsible for protecting the rights of the individual, not suppressing them.

Cameron from Holsworthy said:

This legislation if passed will also jeopardize any future on-line discussions on any subject the government of the day does not want the general population to discuss contrary to the government of the day's beliefs.

Annetta from Bundeena said:

Even social media companies such as Meta and Twitter have voiced their concerns over the proposed law because it's easy to see how the power given to the Australian Communications and Media Authority could be abused.

Thomas from Heathcote said:

To quote John Stuart Mill: "All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."

It is not just the coalition and it's not just members of the crossbench that have issues with this legislation. These are just a couple of examples from my electorate. In all of the circumstances, I join with other members of the coalition in saying that I cannot support the legislation as it's currently drafted.

See this speech in context