Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are all familiar, particularly on this day when we see the US election results come in, with the term 'fake news'. While this refers to untrue stories which are published and made to look like legitimate news stories, the word has become a catch-all term for false information spread online. The proliferation of social media and online information has unfortunately made fake news part of our daily lives. But that does not mean it is always easy to spot it when you see it. It is the same with misinformation and disinformation. I see it in my own family, with my children pointing it out to my wife and me when we see photos that are created by AI or deliberately produced for misinformation or disinformation.

The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce defines 'misinformation' as 'false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive'. So with misinformation there is no intent. Their definition for 'disinformation' is 'knowingly false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes'. Basically it's the difference between misinforming and lying, with lying having the intent to deceive.

Of course, the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce remit concerns electoral processes, which can be adversely affected by misinformation and disinformation with serious consequences. However, the effects of spreading mis- and disinformation do not stop at elections; they are wide-ranging throughout our society. Whether the cause is ignorance or the motivation is hateful, the outcomes of the spread of untrue information can be the same. These outcomes include the creation and bolstering of divisions in our communities, the growth of fear, anxiety and uncertainty, and the rise of extremist viewpoints. There are also ramifications for individuals who in some cases are identified as perpetrators of crimes that they did not commit, with the so-called proof spreading wildly across social media. We have all heard the saying that a lie goes around the world before truth even gets out of bed. We saw this happen after the tragic Bondi Junction stabbing, when a completely innocent person was labelled by someone as the perpetrator.

These are the reasons why the Albanese Labor government has introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill. It will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as well as make consequential amendments to the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021. The aim of these reforms is to protect Australians from the scourges of misinformation and disinformation while balancing people's right to freedom of expression. I stress that. I also stress that freedom doesn't come without responsibility. Racists can still be sued for defamation when they say racist things. Once upon a time racists in this nation had an easy time of it, but now they can be held to account, even though they whinge about it when a court finds against them.

The background to this bill is the commitment the Albanese Labor government made in January 2023 to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with new powers. ACMA currently has the responsibility for setting and managing rules about communications, media services and markets. The new powers will enable ACMA to create transparency and accountability regarding digital platforms and their efforts to control mis- and disinformation. The government instigated an extensive consultation phase on the draft legislation, and we are confident that the bill meets the expectations of both digital service providers and everyday Australians. As recently as August this year, the Australian Media Literacy Alliance reported that 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about misinformation and want it to be addressed.

The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation was developed by the Digital Industry Group, and updated in December 2022. This was in response to the recommendation of the digital platforms inquiry titled 'Regulating in the digital age: government response and implementation roadmap'. The intentions behind the code are sound. However, the code is voluntary and has a limited number of signatories. The framework needs to be bolstered by accountability to make it an effective tool. This is one of the recommendations that ACMA has made previously. It's the classic government intervention: you try for a carrot, but sometimes you have to bring in the stick. ACMA has also found that the transparency reports under the voluntary code do not include reliable and Australian context specific data on measures to address mis- and disinformation.

This legislation will give ACMA the power to hold digital platforms to account for publishing mis- and disinformation. I've said before that the Labor government takes the job of protecting Australians very seriously, and this legislation is another piece of that puzzle. We haven't seen the analysis of the US election yet, but we know that Iranians, Russians and other state actors or state-backed actors have tried to create misinformation and disinformation in the electoral process. Those who do not want democracies to thrive like to undermine them via social media. The voluntary code will continue under this legislation, but it will be strengthened by the development of a regulatory foundation which comes into effect if digital platforms do not provide sufficient protection for the community voluntarily.

ACMA will also be able to increase transparency about the measures digital platforms have in place and assess their systems and processes. This does not mean that digital platforms will subsequently be censoring a wide range of content shared by Australians. The framework is proportionate and graduated and does not restrict freedom of expression. Importantly it will be the digital platforms which carry the responsibility for the information they publish and promote. I would like to stress that the legislation is concerned with content that, as the Minister for Communications says, is 'reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harms with significant and far-reaching implications for the Australian community'. So telling people that you scored a great try on the weekend is not something that's going to cause national harm. It's not telling yarns that we're worried about; it's where you are actually going to have implications for the Australian community.

This high threshold includes harm to the operation or integrity of an electoral or referendum process in Australia—putting democracy up high, as the first point; the targeting and defamation of a group in our community; intentionally inflicted physical injury to an individual in Australia; harm to public health in Australia, including preventative public health measures—something that I'm sure Deputy Speaker Freelander would be very supportive of; imminent danger to critical infrastructure or emergency services; and, finally, imminent harm to the Australian economy. We're talking about national significance. Australians do not have to be concerned that their content will be taken down. The bill requires the removal of content only if there is disinformation which involves such things as bots or troll farms. That's the reference I made earlier to the Russians, Iranians and North Koreans—people who deliberately target democratic nations. There are organisations that exist for the purpose of spreading disinformation for specific agendas, such as causing division or affecting an election.

I repeat that the focus of this new legislation is the digital providers, not individual Australian users. ACMA will not be able to remove individual pieces of content or user accounts. Similarly, ACMA will not be able to investigate individual users or apply penalties to them. Under this legislation, the focus will be on core transparency requirements for digital providers. In other words, they will have to be upfront about the actions they are taking to deal with mis- and disinformation. This includes publishing their media literacy plan and specifying the steps they are taking to help their users identify misinformation and disinformation. I've noticed X have been a little bit hit and miss, but they have taken some steps towards doing that.

The focus on empowering users to critically assess content was a key focus of UNESCO's Global Media and Information Literacy Week in October. This event highlighted the global scale of the misinformation and disinformation spread. Educating and enabling users to identify mis- and disinformation and make informed choices about engaging with content is critical. There is also a risk assessment element to the new requirements for digital providers. It will be mandatory for providers to identify the risk of the mis- and disinformation published on their platforms.

Another change to ACMA's remit is the power to require digital platform providers to create and retain records about mis- and disinformation. This could be in the form of periodic reporting. Such transparency will enable progress tracking and also reassure Australians. Again, this will not impact individual Australian users unless they are an employee of a digital platform, a content moderator, a fact checker or a person providing services to the platform provider.

ACMA will also be granted the power to approve codes and standards that cover things such as reporting tools, links to authoritative information and support for fact checking. Such measures may be taken when existing processes are not restricting mis- and disinformation sufficiently and are putting the community at risk.

The bill excludes professional news content. That means that your sister-in-law getting drunk on a Friday night and having a spray at the family is not going to be included by this. I'll give the minister at the table, without naming him, some comfort in that. It also excludes content that is satirical—I refer to the sister-in-law rule that I mentioned above. Similarly, content that is for academic, artistic, scientific or religious purposes will not be affected. However, authorised government content and electoral communications are subject to the bill. This means that Australians can be assured that politicians and political parties are being scrutinised and are not above the rules.

ACMA has a range of options available in the event that digital platforms do not comply with the new measures. ACMA will be able to use a proportionate and graduated response, ranging from issuing formal warnings to remedial directions, infringement notices, injunctions and civil penalties through the court system if needed. The civil penalties may be up to two per cent of global revenue for breaches of a misinformation code and up to five per cent for breaches of a misinformation standard. That is a serious penalty, so pay attention, Mr Musk. These penalties consider the potential for extremely harmful effects from the spread of mis- and disinformation.

There will be a requirement for the legislation to be reviewed every three years, and that process must include public consultation and an assessment on any impact on freedom of expression, something that is important in Australia. A further safeguard is that the first scheduled review must take international legislative developments into account. It must also include access to data, ensuring increased transparency of the operation of the legislation. Subsequent reports must be tabled in parliament.

At the heart of this legislation is the acknowledgement of the serious risk that misinformation and disinformation have to individuals, groups and our society as a whole. We must act to protect Australians from the blight of fake news, and these amendments provide safeguards while not affecting freedom of expression. So I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context