Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I make my contribution, I will echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues to this most appalling bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. First, I want to put on the record that this is a seriously bad piece of legislation. It is a continued attack on the rights of the Australian people and free speech in this country. Truth in politics has always been important to me. With current advertising trending towards short, catchy sound bites, it deeply concerns me that the truth gets lost in our modern media. Our younger generation are particularly vulnerable, with platforms such as TikTok delivering super short messages without context behind the issues that face everyday Australians. The Labor Party in its recent Queensland election campaign ran an advertising blitz on the LNP, suggesting that they were going to privatise health services and take away women's reproductive rights, the new 'Mediscare' campaign. The Labor Party, in its recent Queensland election campaign, ran an advertising blitz on the LNP, suggesting that they are going to privatise health services and take away women's reproductive rights—the new 'Mediscare' campaign, so to speak. The pressure to influence our voters is intense. With compulsory voting for the upcoming federal election, it is an ideal time to encourage our families and younger generations to look deeper into the issues and do some research. Almost everyone has a smartphone and the ability to search for the truth behind these matters. Read the full story and make your own judgement on issues that affect how you vote.

This leads me to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is currently being debated in federal parliament. Wherever you sit on the political spectrum, you should be concerned about this bill. It's not a Left-versus-Right issue. Criticism has come from all corners, from leading legal bodies to human rights commissions, civil liberty groups and even the media union. In the meantime, we already have seen the Labor Party freely use the term 'misinformation' to try and silence those who do not share their political view. We know that the government have been overwhelmed by large numbers of submissions on their bill. They conveniently delay releasing them publicly until a time of their choosing. Concerningly, this legislation directly involves the government in political communication. Under this bill, the minister may exclude any platform from the operation of the bill, so a digital site that has politics favoured by a government could be excluded, providing unfair advantage to a political party and providing skewed information to those wanting to be informed. More than 20,000 Australians made submissions and comments opposing this bill.

The new version of the bill gives the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, powers to require digital platforms to take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. Under the bill, ACMA does not make rulings on whether a particular piece of content is misinformation or disinformation. Rather, it gives powers to determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. If ACMA determines that a platform is not taking adequate steps, it can issue fines of up to five per cent of a company's global turnover. This legislation creates a huge financial incentive for social media platforms to remove comments made by Australians, even if those statements are made in good faith, essentially stifling free speech in Australia. Digital platforms risk big fines if they do not comply with digital platform rules and/or industry codes and misinformation standards. ACMA will determine whether or not a digital platform is compliant with the legislation in order to avoid the risk of fines. It would make sense for digital platforms to censor content which ACMA may see as disinformation or misinformation. In doing so, it is likely that platforms will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians. The government has misfired badly on this important issue, and freedom of expression is under threat in Australia.

The coalition has been reviewing this new version of the bill, and we have significant concerns. One of the issues is that, while academic statements are exempt from being labelled as misinformation, the honestly held opinions of everyday Australians can be censored under this legislation. Censorship undermines the democratic principle of free speech and stifles creativity and the exchange of ideas. When individuals have their opinions censored, it can lead to distrust of the government. The coalition will fight Labor's misinformation bill because, just like their first attempt, it is an appalling attack on free speech here in Australia.

Already we have seen top lawyers slam the bill. The Victorian Bar association has made a scathing submission, which warned the bill would undermine free speech by encouraging 'chilling self-censorship' and stifling discussions of 'sensitive or controversial' views. The New South Wales Solicitor-General says:

It 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.

…   …   …

References to Orwell's 1984 have become something of a cliche over the years but there is a sinister suggestion of its thesis in proposed legislation that is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues so any debate that does occur accords with the views of a group of government-appointed bureaucrats.

The Victorian barrister and Voltaire Society president was quoted in The Australian as saying the changes to the bill were the equivalent of 'putting lipstick on a pig' and expanding the legislation to capture political content was a change for the 'worse'. Politics involves a lot of commentary and a lot of loose language and it doesn't necessarily mean it's disinformation or misinformation.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

… this bill is unsatisfactory. If the government says there are deficiencies in our laws relating to political speech, then it should introduce a bill to parliament dealing with those deficiencies.

… … …

The government's role as an intellectual arbiter of the truth in social and political debate must be constricted, if not completely denied. This is based on deep scepticism about the good faith of those controlling the government.

Professor Nick Coatsworth, former deputy chief health officer, said:

The terms 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' have become overused in public discourse and are employed by both left and right as a way to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate. In an era where our 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.

The Australian Christian Lobby said:

There is no excuse for what is 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.

The Minister for Communications has existing powers which could now be used under the misinformation bill to order ACMA to conduct specific investigations. The minister can also order public hearings. The only constraint on that power is that it cannot relate to a particular content posted on a digital communications platform by a single end user identifiable by the ACMA. This power is wide open to political abuse and is inconsistent with basic democratic values. The government is trying to rush this legislation through and gave people barely a week to get their submissions into the Senate inquiry. We understand there have been many thousands of submissions made to the Senate inquiry but barely a fraction of those have been uploaded for public view. The communications minister is reported to have warned that there would be a devastating consequence should her rejigged legislation not be passed by the end of the year. This is alarmist and desperate language from a government that has had more than two years to address these issues. The coalition stands firmly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill because we believe in free speech and we will fight to defend those rights. This Labor government will not, and they will pursue.

There is a broad definition of 'serious harm' mentioned in this legislation. It is possible that a large amount of material could be captured as 'serious harm'—elections, referendums, public health, preventative health measures, imminent harm to the economy and financial markets and so on. It is appalling that there would be one rule for government MPs and another for everyday Australians who just want to have their say, including members of the opposition. The coalition's focus is on Labor's bill because that's what is before parliament right now. We are holding this bad government to account. This bill is a shocking attack on free speech and the government is trying to ram it through parliament this year. I've had many constituents contact my office with their concerns around this bill. We are all concerned about the spread of misinformation and this is not the solution.

New polling data released by the Institute of Public Affairs shows that 65 per cent of Australians said they are concerned misinformation laws will be used by government officials for political purposes; 69 per cent of Australians said they are concerned misinformation laws will be used by social media companies for political purposes. Australians are firming in their support to protect freedom of speech as the debate around proposed misinformation laws goes on. Forty-five per cent believe free speech should be protected, even if this means wrong, inaccurate or false information is public; just 34 per cent disagree. This compares with 38 per cent who agreed and 37 per cent who disagreed in May 2024. Young Australians are most opposed to the federal government's proposed online censorship laws, with the majority of Australians aged between 18 and 34 believing that freedom of speech should be protected online.

As shadow minister for communications David Coleman stated in the Australian Financial Review:

Democracies move forward by debating ideas. Progress is achieved through applying sunlight to ideas, not censoring them. Of course, the democratic process can be untidy. People hold unfashionable opinions that we might not hold ourselves. That's OK. After all, sometimes the unfashionable opinions turn out to be right.

Labor's misinformation bill is a clear threat to this free exchange of ideas.

Understanding the immense and obvious risk, comparable countries to Australia do not have laws like this. For example, the United States and the United Kingdom do not have laws remotely like those the Albanese government is proposing. As the federal member for Flynn, I know that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental principles of a democratic society. Changes to the laws in this area involve a complex area of policy, and overreach by government must be avoided.

Our democracy has been formed on freedom of speech, and the coalition will always fight for this fundamental right of our people. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' is a statement often attributed to Voltaire, a 16th-century freedom-of-speech advocate. The idea of protecting freedom of speech has been around for a very long time, and we should, as a parliament, continue the defence of freedom of speech. This is an appalling bill, and it should be opposed and condemned at all costs.

See this speech in context