Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Would you mind not interrupting so I get an opportunity to have free speech. You are acting in a highly disorderly manner as you leave the chamber. I note for the record that the member for Page continues to yell and scream at me as he leaves the chamber. However, that is free speech. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, that would have prevented that from happening today. There is nothing in this legislation that prevents Australians of different opinions to continue to articulate them in a respectful manner in any forum in any place in Australia. I look to the gallery today. Not all of you might agree with everything I might have to say in this chamber, but you're going to respect my right to say that, and I'm going to respect your right to have a different opinion too.

Today we have a piece of legislation before the House that deals with a very serious threat that engulfs Australians everywhere. It's a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australian people, and it is also a threat to the health and wellbeing of our democracy and to not just the political institutions but all of the institutions that normally conservative members of this parliament would be defending to the hilt. But there's nothing now that all of those institutions are at threat by the ever-escalating levels of serious mis- and disinformation. I will come back to that word 'serious' in a moment.

This is not a new problem for Australia. It's not a new problem around the world. Governments across the globe are trying to tackle this issue. With the rise of social media and the technological advancements over time, such as artificial intelligence, the continued increase of mis- and disinformation and the capacity to scale that up into mega proportions like we have never seen before, the scale and the speed at which this serious, harmful misinformation can now be spread online are really amplifying the threats to our citizens. That's why I am pleased to stand in this chamber to speak in support of a legislative framework that is going to deal with the deeply serious risks that are being posed in this unfettered spreading of mis- and disinformation across digital platforms, in particular, but they're not alone in the avenues for mis- and disinformation. This bill presents a proactive step towards safeguarding our citizens, safeguarding our democratic processes and ensuring the integrity of information that reaches each and every one of us.

Sadly, the member opposite tried to paint this as some kind of radical proposal, but I hope you understand in those opening remarks that really nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing radical about a government wishing to protect its citizens. There is nothing radical about wanting to ensure that we hold some of these hostile actors to account. I must say that, usually when we have to deal with matters of foreign interference into our democratic processes, conservative members are usually quick to join us in ensuring that issues of national security demand and are given a multiparty approach, so it is with deep regret that I stand in this chamber and listen to the arguments being posed. I have total respect for the capacity to make those arguments, but some of the misconstrual of the content of this bill is again feeding into the kind of conversations that are not always as informed as they might be.

So let me just put a few things on the record here. This bill is about increasing transparency and accountability, especially on the digital platforms. We all know—and every single parent we run into in our constituency groups is talking to us right now about this—just how prolific and harmful content on digital platforms is for their children. That's what their first and primary concern has been. In addition to whatever else they are seeing themselves, they are worried about the impacts of social harms that are being generated through digital platforms in Australia.

There is substantial evidence from both Australia and overseas that serious harm is being caused by mis- and disinformation. We are increasingly relying on social media as a source of news, and, indeed, I am chairing a committee now where it's abundantly clear there are some generations—those under 40—for whom news via a digital platform is their sole source of information and access. When you talk to gen Z people, at least 60 per cent of them now see no news other than what is delivered on their smartphone.

So that is what parents are worried about. They want to know that that information is authenticated, is accurate and is something they can trust in. That is totally not the case for any family in Australia right now, and members opposite know that. They know that, but they do not wish to support this bill because of a furphy, I have to say, about this impinging on free speech. Many people raised, rightly so, concerns about this bill and impacts on free speech. Any thinking Australian is going to ask that question, because we hold that value dearly.

This bill took many of those concerns into account during the first consultation period. Legitimate concerns were raised and then addressed in the next drafting of this bill. That was really to ensure that we got that balance right between free speech, which Australian people do rightly hold dearly, and the need to provide safer environments for our kids, our families and our citizens more broadly. We needed to find a balance about how to uphold freedom of expression whilst also combating the deep, serious harm that mis- and disinformation is having.

This bill carefully collaborated definitions of serious harms, so it is a furphy to suggest that this is impacting people's opinions. Unless your opinion is doing serious harm to others, then it is not captured by this legislation. Let me assure you of that. The Australian people are rightly opinionated, and we love that. When I go to the supermarket, I have people telling me what I'm doing good and what I'm doing bad straight to my face, any time of the day or night. We love that. That is called direct constituent feedback. That's what politicians want to hear. That's how we remain connected to our communities. So let's not pretend that anybody's opinions are going to be somehow shut down here.

What is at stake is when we have deep, serious, intentional harm, which is sometimes not even caused by our own citizens. Let's face it: these are global platforms that are operating here—sometimes these are generated by persons on the other side of the globe—but they have direct harmful impacts to our people in Australia. So this bill is not applying to professional news content. Journalists, of course, will be able to continue to craft their trade and honour their profession. Trust me—journalists too want to know that their trusted, authentic, verified news is able to be delivered to people and isn't being drowned out by deliberate mis- or disinformation. There is nothing in this bill that enables ACMA themselves to take down individual pieces of content that users are putting up there. That is not the intent of this bill, and suggestions to say otherwise are deeply diverting people's attention and, in fact, buying into some of the fear that is part of the business model for mis- and disinformation.

This is a bill that's taking a systems-level approach. The digital platforms remain, as they should, responsible for managing content on their services. As I said, I'm in the middle of a report now where I will have a lot more to say about the responsibility of social media platforms in Australia, but it is no secret that my view is that if you want to operate social media platforms then you have a social obligation to be socially responsible. Those are my tests for social media. My committee and, indeed, this parliament will have much more to say on that in the future.

But anybody that thinks we should not be acting on the serious harm—and I underline those words 'serious harm'—that is being inflicted on our children, on those that we love and on citizens and vulnerable groups across our communities—if you don't think it is your role to help protect those citizens then we do have a fundamental disagreement, because I think that is government's role and that it is the role of every parliamentarian to think about ways that we will ensure safety not just in our physical world but in our online worlds. That is an essential part of government's work.

This bill has undergone a lot of consultation already. There are continued reportings going on with Senate committees at the moment. So the idea that this bill has not been part of conversations and subject to a detailed critique already is a nonsense. This bill has undergone changes as a result of that considerable consultation. And who knows? We are yet to see the report of the Senate committee inquiry into this. We will do what all good, responsible, thoughtful governments do, and that is take that feedback into account. We'll see how the bill progresses, both in this House and in the other house. Again, that's the working of our democracy.

But there is no doubt that the top priority for an Albanese Labor government—as I think it should be for any Australian government, quite frankly—will be keeping our citizens safe. That is our top priority, and we make no apologies for that. I would like to see parliamentary support for our endeavours to keep citizens safe, but it would seem that that—I remain forever optimistic, but the speeches I have listened to to date give me a heavy heart and reason for pause there. But there is time. The vote is not on yet. I do hope that members opposite will join us in an endeavour to ensure the safety of our citizens in an ever-evolving digital world where mis- and disinformation are causing gross and serious harms that have ongoing consequences, not just for the generation now but for the next generations as well. We need to get this bill through the parliament, and we need the support of everyone. (Time expired)

See this speech in context