Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. As many of my esteemed colleagues have identified throughout this debate, this legislation presents a serious threat to Australians' freedom of speech. At a time when Australians are living in a cost-of-living crisis, it beggars belief that the Albanese government would think that this proposed bill would be a priority. If you ever need evidence of how out of touch this government is—and of their warped sense of priorities—you need look no further than this bill before us this evening.

The bill before us provides the Australian Media and Communications Authority, known as ACMA, with powers to require digital platforms to take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. If ACMA determines that a platform is not taking adequate steps, they can impose fines equivalent to five per cent of a company's global turnover.

Under Labor's plan, something can be misinformation even if it is the honestly held opinion of an Australian. Such a statement doesn't have to be malicious or designed to deceive. This can include unintentionally misleading statements about elections, referendums, the economy or the stock market. There are also some exceptions in this legislation. Exceptions apply for academics, scientists, artists and even comedians although I'm not entirely sure how we define what a 'comedian' is. But the views of everyday Australians—well, they are captured under the government's planned legislation and they receive no such exemption. The practical effect of this bill will be widespread censorship. This should be obvious, as the digital platforms will want to avoid these fines which could be, as I've said, up to five per cent of their global turnover.

Another concern of mine is that the communications minister can personally order investigations and hearings into what the government decides is misinformation. This is quite clearly open to abuse and, in my opinion, will see diverse voices censored. So, what would the minister have done with that power last year? I ask you to consider that.

As I've just mentioned, referendums are one of the topics identified in the bill whereby misinformation can constitute serious harm. Time and time again, those opposite labelled questions or criticisms about Labor's Voice to Parliament model as 'misinformation'. The brains trust behind the referendum—we know the crew: the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the then Minister for Indigenous Australians—all came into this place and labelled any dissent to the Voice as 'misinformation'. If you don't believe me, it's in Hansard. A month before the referendum, the Treasurer said:

When you strip away all of the conspiracy theories and all the mistruths and you look through the fog of misinformation and manipulation, this opportunity is really clear and really important to our country and to all of its people.

There are still people out there who believe that the Voice referendum was rejected in every state because of misinformation. They refuse to accept that everyday Australians came to their own conclusions and voted no simply because the Voice was a bad and divisive proposal.

I believe this is a very big motivator for why combating so-called misinformation is a priority for Labor. They believe that uncensored debate is harmful as it stands in the way of what they deem to be progress. We know that it's not because Labor are committed to the truth. Let's not forget Labor's guilty track record of spreading untruths. Who could forget their 2016 'Mediscare' campaign or their 2022 campaign scaring pensioners into thinking they would be placed on the cashless debit card? In both of those instances, Labor didn't believe those mistruths that they were spreading. If Labor are seriously worried about the harm caused by misinformation, why do they consistently run on it? We know they plan to do it again. We've already seen the memes unleashed of three-eyed fish in response to the coalition's proposed nuclear policy. It's a classic policy of do as I say, not as I do.

While I mentioned the Voice, it's clearly not just the Voice, because misinformation has become a left-wing catch-all phrase for everything they don't like to hear. Put simply, if you agree with Labor, well, it's all good. If you have a different opinion, then guess what? That must be misinformation! In July, the WA Labor member for Hasluck said in a speech to the House in reference to the live sheep trade debate:

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of rhetoric and a lot of misinformation, not just from those opposite, but by leaders within the farming bodies such as the National Farmers' Federation …

This is just another example of dissent being branded as 'misinformation'. See where we're going here? I'm very concerned that this is a very slippery slope, and I'm sure a lot of Australians would be shocked to know that this is even possible. Unlike the US, we don't have a constitutional provision enshrining the right to freedom of speech. The debate around a bill of rights here will no doubt continue. But I will just say that the Americans got it right in providing a free speech protection in their First Amendment. It makes sense that it would be first, as, without free speech, the other rights are in ever-present danger of being taken away.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that there isn't troubling content out there, particularly in the social media world. Personally, I think we would all be better off as a society if we spent less time online and more time in the real world—I would say less time online and more time out in the great electorate of Durack, to be more specific. However, when we're talking about troubling speech, the traditional approach has always been that the way to combat bad speech is with more speech. Labor is abandoning this approach in favour of mass censorship. So mark my words: this will lead to a further decline in trust for government and, of course, leave many of those censored feeling vindicated and only further commit them to their cause. Just think of the old saying, 'If they're coming after you, you must be doing something right.'

These are issues that really should have been considered by the minister, given that this bill had a long holiday. As we know, there was a 2023 bill, which was even more extreme than the one before us this evening. In response to that version of the bill, the government received more than 20,000 submissions and other responses strongly opposing it. Groups including the Human Rights Commission, civil liberty bodies, the Australian Law Commission and religious institutions deeply criticised the draft legislation. Unfortunately, after binning the previous bill, they've now brought it back. Mr Speaker, I can tell you I have heard from many, many constituents right across Durack that they deeply oppose this bill. They share my concerns that this radical bill represents an unacceptable attack on the freedom of speech. Constituents have raised with me that they are concerned by the vague definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm' and fear this could easily lead to overcensorship, which will stifle legitimate discussion and debate. I'm certain that this isn't just Liberal and National members receiving this feedback from our communities; I'm quite sure that those sitting opposite have also been receiving the same lack of appreciation for the bill before us this evening.

Given the former version of this bill received tens of thousands of submissions and the considerable feedback we, as members of parliament, are receiving, you might have thought that the government would establish a proper community consultation process. Unfortunately not. The government provided just seven days for submissions to be made to the committee looking at this bill—just seven days for a bill that is more than 70 pages long and has an explanatory memorandum that is over 140 pages long. Really? What is this government running from? Just seven days? What's it hiding? Despite such a short time for public submissions, to make it clear, the idea remains friendless. Already, we've seen the Victorian Bar association, the New South Wales Solicitor-General and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties slam this bill, to name just a few.

I'll use this opportunity to give attention to some of this criticism. New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton was quoted in the Australian saying that this bill:

… targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

The Australian Christian Lobby has said:

There is no excuse for what's proposed in this bill.

…   …   …

Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.

One of the areas open to censorship under this bill is public health. Professor Nick Coatsworth, former deputy chief health officer, was one of the lucky few that got an opportunity to make a submission. Professor Coatsworth's comments included the following:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse, often employed as a way to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate. In an era where limited attention spans hinder reasoned discussion, these terms have become shortcuts to shutting down conversation

…   …   …

Rather than seeking to impose the truth upon the public through legislation, we must focus on equipping our communities with the tools to critically assess and judge information for themselves.

Quote such as these speak for themselves and clearly identify that this is just another antidemocratic and nanny state action taken by those opposite.

In wrapping up, I will not be supporting this bill. Freedom of speech is fundamental to our democratic society, and providing for widespread censorship is, quite frankly, un-Australian and dangerous. As French writer and philosopher Voltaire said, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' I urge everyone across the chamber to vote against this legislation.

See this speech in context