Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will not be supporting the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, because it will undermine, erode and hack down free speech in this country. Much has already been said about the extremely short and inadequate seven-working-day consultation period for citizens and groups to get in submissions to have their views on this bill heard. The consultation process has been sorely lacking and has been widely criticised by everyone, from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.

However, as concerning as that issue is, and leaving it aside for the moment, my fundamental issue with this bill is that it will lead to censorship both by the digital platforms, who won't want to be fined by ACMA—up to five per cent of their global revenue—and by ACMA itself. I just don't want to entrust ACMA with that much power. The powers are broad and sweeping, and ACMA should not have them. It's not just big global digital platforms that will be affected. Websites will be caught, as will podcasts, search engines and message boards.

I have many issues with the provisions of this bill, one of which is the way in which misinformation is defined. It is very, very broad. It can include statements and opinions that are not designed to deceive or mislead but which nevertheless can fall foul of the censors. What is and what is not misinformation is subjective, and it's a minefield that threatens to explode on Australians engaging in the free speech that has made our democracy the envy of the world. Elections are also caught by this bill, which could have a huge adverse impact on the way free and fair political debate is conducted in this country.

I am also concerned that this bill gives the Minister for Communications broad powers to order misinformation investigations and hearings. They are broad and sweeping powers, and again I do not believe a minister should have them or be entrusted with them. The Victorian Bar association has said this about the powers to compel production contained in this bill:

The Bill arms ACMA with extraordinary coercive powers that can be exercised against any person who might have information or documents 'relevant' to the existence of, among other things, 'misinformation or disinformation on a digital communications platform' … Suspected authors or disseminators of alleged 'misinformation' are obvious targets for the exercise of such powers. That makes this part of the Bill somewhat unique within its overall scheme—here the Bill is concerned with the responsibilities of individuals, rather than service providers.

What the Victorian Bar association is saying is that the powers contained in this bill are far-reaching and they are very concerning. The Victorian Bar association also said this about the bill:

The bill's interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services.

The Victorian Bar association did not stop there. It went further and said the bill 'should not be enacted'. The association said the bill is 'not justifiable' and, at the conclusion of its submission on this bill, reiterated that it will have a chilling effect. The association concluded its submission in this way:

The … Bill is not justifiable in this respect and will have a chilling effect. It is also likely to be ineffective and unworkable in responding to the harms to which it is purportedly directed.

This bill cannot be supported. I wish to thank all of the residents of our area who have let me know about their issues with it. That's the importance of our democracy: everybody gets a say—everyone around Australia gets a say, as the member for Wide Bay was just stating to this House. Australians all around our nation are very concerned that they won't be able to have that free and fair say in our society during elections, in participating in our democracy, and I think that is extremely concerning. That's why I can't support this bill. Because of all of those serious concerns I have about the adverse impacts of this bill and the shocking effects and impacts it will have on free speech, I will not support it. I will be voting against it—it's a no from me.

See this speech in context