David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government is seeking to impose new misinformation laws in Australia which are deeply flawed;

(b) even before submissions closed on 20 August, the Government's exposure draft bill had already been the subject of an avalanche of criticism;

(c) some of the most vocal criticisms have come from leading lawyers who have clinically taken the Government's bill apart, piece by piece; and

(d) the Minister appears to have had few defenders of her plan;

(2) acknowledges that, under the Government's exposure draft bill:

(a) the definition of 'misinformation' is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate;

(b) authorised content by the Government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Government by ordinary Australians can be misinformation;

(c) nothing an academic says can be misinformation, but statements by somebody disagreeing with an academic can be misinformation;

(d) good faith statements made by entertainers cannot be misinformation, but good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation;

(e) journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation; and

(f) if the Minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of the misinformation laws;

(3) condemns the Government for delivering this appalling exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023; and

(4) calls on the Government to:

(a) admit that the Government's plan is deeply flawed; and

(b) bin the bill.

The government's misinformation bill is one of the most disturbing pieces of legislation ever put forward by an Australian government. It strikes at the heart of our democratic rights, and it is an absolute disgrace. I'll come, point by point, to the extraordinary things that are in the bill. But do you know what this bill has done that's extraordinary? It's united absolutely everyone, because everyone is out against this bill, whether it's the civil liberties groups, the Human Rights Commission, religious institutions, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance or the Law Council of Australia. I note that the shadow minister was formerly an esteemed director of the institution, and they have absolutely eviscerated this bill. And so they should, because it is just horribly bad.

We only know about those submissions because those organisations have taken the step of self-publishing, because, despite these submissions closing two weeks ago, they still haven't been published by the government. I understand there are many thousands—maybe even tens of thousands—of submissions on this extraordinary bill, but we don't know what they are because the government still hasn't released them. They need to be released.

The reason everyone is opposed to the bill is that it's just extraordinary. Here's what it does. It says that, 'Misinformation includes a statement which is unintentionally false, misleading, or deceptive.' Think about that. How many things do Australians say every day that someone might say were unintentionally false, misleading or deceptive? Quite a lot—thousands. Under this bill, if ACMA, the regulator, determines that digital companies aren't doing enough to remove that sort of content, and if it's capable of contributing to so-called 'serious harm', they can get massive fines—fines, potentially, into the billions of dollars. So what are those digital companies going to do? They're going to remove the free speech of Australians. They can either run the risk of falling foul of ACMA and exposing themselves to massive fines, or they can remove a whole lot of the free speech of Australians. So what are they going to do? Of course they're going to remove that free speech.

You know what's remarkable? The government has included some exceptions to this rule on free speech. One of the exceptions is for the Albanese government itself. Anything the Albanese government authorises cannot be misinformation under the bill, but criticisms of the Albanese government can be misinformation. Anything that an academic says cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of that academic can be misinformation. If a comedian says something in good faith, that's okay; it can't be misinformation. But what if an Australian says something in good faith about their political beliefs? Well, that can be misinformation. The same applies to religious beliefs, too: there's no exemption whatsoever for religious beliefs under this bill.

This bill doesn't only apply to the digital platforms; it applies to every Australian. As the Law Council of Australia has noted, any Australian is subject to this bill. The Law Council says:

… suspected authors or disseminators of alleged 'misinformation' could be subject to the use of the proposed information-gathering powers.

What that means is that if you don't show up when ACMA, the regulator, asks you to show up to talk about allegations of misinformation, you can be fined $8,000 per day—all of this in one of the great democracies on earth. This is an absolutely extraordinary piece of legislation.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties President, Michael Cope, said:

Clearly the government is not and cannot be impartial in deciding the truth in social and political debate.

This puts government regulators in charge of determining what is the truth. In Mr Cope's words:

… the Bill will enable the Authority to inappropriately control significant amounts of political and social speech.

As a government, you don't put out legislation unless you think it's a good idea, so this government put out this legislation because they like this legislation. They want this legislation. They believe in this legislation. When the coalition will fight this legislation every step of the way. We want to bin the bill. If you're opposed to it, sign the petition at binthebill.au to stop this appalling legislation.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Combating misinformation and disinformation is one of the Albanese government's top priorities. Our democracy relies on a strong and robust economy of ideas, but around the world we've witnessed the scourge of misinformation and disinformation surrounding some of the most important issues in our time, issues like the efficacy of vaccines during the toughest days of the COVID-19 pandemic—issues where the spread of misinformation, whether inadvertent or deliberate, can cause real harm to people and to democracy. We've witnessed a change in the way that information is shared and disseminated in our national polity. The purpose of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is to respond to that change. Not doing anything, not responding, would allow further decay of our democratic polity. It would enable misinformation to continue to affect our democracy.

The criticisms of this bill have included that the definition of misinformation is unnecessarily broad. That is not true. The bill defines misinformation clearly as online content that is false, misleading or deceptive and that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm. Hence, disinformation is the intentional spread of misinformation aimed to deceive or cause serious harm.

The Liberal Party are more interested in playing politics than engaging with serious debate on this issue. Indeed, the Liberal Party website currently states that a re-elected Liberal coalition government will introduce 'stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers'. Yet, when the draft bill was put out for consultation, instead of making constructive suggestions to improve the bill, instead of sitting down and working out how we could deliver a solution together on this important issue, all the opposition could offer up was the idea that the bill could be stopped, or binned. 'Bin the bill', the perfect three-word slogan for the misinformation age: no constructive engagement, no solutions to this real problem, just a slogan made to be shared online.

Something needs to be done. Misinformation can interfere with our democratic process, and we've already witnessed the potential consequences if misinformation goes viral and unchecked. Leading democracies around the world have endured polarisation of communities, enacted by politicians desperate for power. It's been dubbed by one New York Times columnist as the normalisation of social hysteria. None of us want to see Australia go down that path, and this bill will help ensure that we won't. Not only do misinformation and disinformation threaten our democracy; they can inflict real harm on real people. Last year ACMA released research revealing that four out of five Australians had been exposed to misinformation about COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic—four out of five. This was mostly experienced on digital platforms like YouTube and social media. One paper published by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information described misinformation as:

… a powerfully destructive force in this era of global communication, when one false idea can spread instantly to many vulnerable ears.

Who knows how many lives could have been saved here in Australia and around the world if not for the scourge of misinformation?

I commend the Minister for Communications for her work in this space. This bill would give greater powers to ACMA, and under these proposed changes ACMA would be able to gather information from digital platform providers and keep records on misinformation and disinformation, they would be able to enforce a code of practice to reduce misinformation and disinformation shared on these platforms and they could establish even stronger regulation through an industry standard if a code is deemed inadequate. The bill also follows recommendations by ACMA to improve transparency and hold digital platforms to account. There is a consensus in the community that there needs to be a joint effort to combat misinformation and disinformation, and ACMA's 2021 misinformation report also uncovered that Australians see joint responsibility in doing this. This responsibility is shared between government, platforms and their users. That's why this bill is important. That's why the government is taking action in this vital area.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Banks. Misinformation will be one of the greatest issues of the current century, and while misinformation and disinformation have always existed, the internet has put the power and impact of misinformation and disinformation into the hands of every man, woman, girl and boy. With each year, fewer young people can distinguish between trusted and non-trusted sources of truth, and even then, trust in traditional media is at an all-time low. As the Minister for Communications has been at pains to point out, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which was released as an exposure draft in June, is a reform that was in fact begun by the previous coalition government. Four years ago the coalition released a report titled Regulating in the digital age, which set out a road map for action responding to the ACCC's Digital Platforms Inquiry of July 2019. In that report the coalition recognised:

The risks posed by disinformation and an erosion of news quality highlight the importance of collective and coordinated action by industry, civil society and governments. This includes the creation of a strong and sustainable news media ecosystem alongside educational initiatives for citizens to improve their ability to engage critically with online news and information sources.

It went on:

The Government recognises the need to balance any interventions that might target media literacy and disinformation with rights to freedom of expression and speech. It is important that Australia's approach aligns with and supports global initiatives.

That report committed:

The Government will ask the major digital platforms to develop a voluntary code (or codes) of conduct for disinformation and news quality.

It provided that:

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will have oversight of the codes and report to Government on the adequacy of platforms' measures and the broader impacts of disinformation.

Importantly, it went on:

The codes will address concerns regarding disinformation and credibility signalling for news content and outline what the platforms will do to tackle disinformation on their services and support the ability of Australians to discern the quality of news and information. The codes will be informed by learnings of international examples, such as the European Union Code of Practice on Disinformation.

The Labor Party has picked up this work, post the election, and taken it down a heavy-handed, authoritarian and unthoughtful route. While the coalition believes there is an issue to be tackled, this bill is not how it should be done. Lazy in its wording, the bill would operate to have significant negative repercussions on industry, public discourse and the inherent values of freedom of speech which we hold dear to our way of life.

The government has succeeded in something I thought impossible: unifying commentators in declaring this bill to be ill-thought out, utterly unfit for purpose and a danger to the freedom-of-expression based democracy in which we live. In its current wording, the bill states that misinformation is 'false, misleading or deceptive' conduct that is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm, and yet there is no definition for 'serious harm'. For 'misinformation' there is no requirement for someone making this content to understand that it is false or have an intention to deceive. This is unlike 'disinformation', where there needs to be a proven intent to deceive. In other words, if you believe something is correct but it is not by the definition of what is correct according to this bill it could be characterised as 'misinformation'.

As the Law Council of Australia says in their submission on the bill:

… the everyday experience of the courts or commissions of inquiry shows that discerning truth from falsehood in a procedurally fair manner may be an elaborate, costly and time-consuming process. The statutory supposition that this can be done readily, uncontroversially, and with little effort by ACMA or by digital platform services seems unrealistic in light of real-life experiences …

What is more concerning is the classification of what is 'correct information'. Under the proposed wording in the bill any authorised content from the government is considered not to be misinformation, but it's very utterance by government defines it as being correct. Any statement critiquing the government authorised content, including statements made by member of the public or other politicians in fact, could be considered to be misinformation.

ACMA, best known for its deft management of spectrum, has been given significant powers, including to be able to have information-gathering powers on not just digital platforms but on individuals who express their views on digital platforms. Only exempted voices are able to contradict an official government statement, limited to professional news content sources, educational institutions or for the purposes of satire or entertainment. This sounds draconian because it is. The bill should be binned.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thirty-three billion dollars. That's what a constituent believed was being spent on First Nations programs per year. I corrected him with the figure of $5.3 billion spent specifically on First Nations programs. I obtained that figure from the Parliamentary Library. In the time it took me to have that conversation on his doorstep, how many eyeballs had viewed this misinformation, or is it disinformation? He had received this from a friend, and the question is: where did she get it from? Was it a threat actor pushing an agenda to skew the results of the upcoming referendum?

During the pandemic, while I was caring for sick patients in hospital, I was being asked if Ivermectin or oxygen therapy were protective against COVID. The people who ended up on ventilators had rejected vaccination in favour of crack-pot theories circulating online. In both scenarios, harm is the outcome and it's not trivial.

A 'no' vote based on misinformation is a vote for more of the same. An acceptance of premature death. An acceptance of rheumatic heart disease in children when it's been eliminated elsewhere in our community. An acceptance of double the suicide rate. An acceptance of incarceration rather than university as the destiny for young Indigenous men. These are not abstract concepts for First Peoples, they are realities. How would Australians feel about being manipulated to vote 'no' by malicious actors, foreign or domestic? How would they even know?

Misinformation and disinformation left unchecked is a threat to our safety and wellbeing, our economy and our democracy. It can tear at the social fabric of our society; undermine public trust in our institutions, public health and safety; and disrupt our economy. Foreign interference is a significant national security threat, and generative AI with its near-realistic images and proficient chatbots has only exacerbated the challenge. Social media platforms are not just key communication channels, they are now the public square but with limited moderation.

Despite Australia's world-leading efforts to counter foreign interference, initiated under the former government, it is evident that there is more to do, especially with AI bearing down on us and the geostrategic landscape shifting beneath our feet. Industry has made some progress. Digital platforms, including Apple, Google, Microsoft, TikTok and Twitter, have opted into a voluntary self-regulatory code of practice developed by industry, but the ACMA's report card in 2021 and 2023 found that additional regulatory power was needed, complementing the ACCC's recommendation in 2019.

Principally, this legislation is about encouraging digital platforms to better counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation, rather than the ACMA overtly regulating the content itself. The proposed bill will enable the ACMA to gather information or require digital platforms to provide those records to the ACMA; enable the ACMA to request that industry develop a code of practice, which the ACMA would register and enforce; and allow the ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective.

Importantly, the ACMA does not have power to request specific posts be removed, nor will it have a role in determining what is considered truthful. The DIGI managing director said:

… it formalises our long-term working relationship with the ACMA in relation to combatting misinformation online.

The former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims said:

Claims the government's bill is about censorship of opinion not only misunderstands the legislation but also illustrates a naive understanding of the threats to our society and our democracy.

It seems that the Liberals agree. On their website they have stated that a re-elected Liberal coalition government will introduce 'stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers'. But, now, in their desperation to crawl back to power, they fall back on familiar habits: the scare campaign.

In saying that the government should bin the bill, are the Liberals saying that we should do nothing? Are the Liberals suggesting that we should leave the Australian regulator powerless in the face of this evolving threat? Are they suggesting we sit idly by as foreign interference infects our devices, hearts and minds? Are the Liberals suggesting that we should just leave digital platforms to make up their own rules? They would rather go soft on big tech and give foreign interference a free pass than work in the national interest. While '$33 billion' was wrong, there are 26 million reasons to get this right.

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

Labor's proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is deeply flawed. The bill gives the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, very substantial powers. The ACMA's key power under the legislation is the ability to impose massive fines on digital platforms if it thinks that they are not doing enough to stop misinformation or disinformation.

The definition of misinformation is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate. Authorised content by the Albanese government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Albanese government, made by ordinary Australians, can be misinformation. Nothing an academic says can be misinformation, but statements made by somebody disagreeing with an academic can be misinformation. Good faith statements made by entertainers cannot be misinformation, but good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation. Journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation. If the minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of misinformation laws.

Just recently, I posted a video on my Facebook page of electric vehicles exploding on a highway overseas, exposing the risk of lithium batteries. Within 10 minutes of it being posted, Facebook took it down and claimed it was false information. When I clicked on the source of the fact check, it was an article written in a different language. What was the ACMA's response when I wrote to them about this specific scenario? Very little—even saying, 'Digital platform services are responsible for the content of their service and for minimising disinformation and misinformation while balancing freedom of expression.' So what exactly does that mean?

As the federal member for Flynn, I know that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental principles in a democratic society. Changes to the laws in this area involve a complex area of policy, and overreach by the Albanese government must be avoided. The public will want to know exactly who decides whether content is misinformation or disinformation.

I would like to thank the many constituents who've contacted me about Labor's proposed misinformation bill and their concerns about what changes this will mean for the freedom of speech. Under the planned legislation, there would be one rule for government MPs and another for everyday Australians who just want to have their say, including the members of the opposition. I've been raising this issue with my colleagues, and we have agreed that this is a bad bill which should be torn up and thrown in the bin. I commend the member for Banks for raising this private member's motion. Freedom of speech is a fundamental thing in our democracy, and the coalition will always fight for it. This bill was clearly dreamed up in Canberra, but it would have terrible impacts on freedom of speech in local communities around Australia.

This is not a Left versus Right issue. Criticism has come from all corners: from leading legal bodies to the Human Rights Commission, civil libertarian groups and even the media union. In the meantime, we have already seen the Labor Party freely use the term 'misinformation' to try and silence those who do not want to share their political views. We know that the government has been overwhelmed by a large number of submissions on this bill. They are cynically delaying the releasing of them publicly to a timing of their choosing.

The significant penalties associated with this legislation potentially place substantial power in the hands of government officials. The coalition will engage with stakeholders and carefully examine the proposed legislation.

Whether you are conservative, on the left wing, or somewhere in between, you should be concerned about this bill. It directly involves the government in political communication. It gives immense powers to ACMA. It creates huge financial incentives for tech platforms to remove statements made by Australians, even if they were made in good faith. The government has badly misfired on this issue. I encourage everyone concerned about this legislation to sign up for the Bin the Bill website, to counter Labor's misinformation bill. Our primary message to Australians is that they have the right to freedom of speech. This is a bad law. It must be stopped. Bin the bill.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The threat posed by the spread of misinformation and disinformation is significant. While false, misleading and deceptive information has been around for centuries, the rise of digital platforms over the last 15 years has added a new and dangerous dimension. Misinformation can now be spread more widely and more easily through these platforms with less scrutiny and without the checks and balances of an editorial process.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to combating misinformation and disinformation. The powers proposed in the draft legislation would enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to register and enforce a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms.

Importantly—and despite what some of those opposite would lead you to believe—ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services. This draft legislation is not about having government regulation of individual pieces of content but simply about ensuring that digital platforms have adequate systems in place to address misinformation on their systems and their services.

Like all businesses, digital platforms have a responsibility to ensure that the operation of their businesses does not cause serious harm to the community. Digital platforms cannot simply turn a blind eye to the content posted on their platforms under the guise of free speech. Many of the largest platforms already understand this and take down misinformation and disinformation content, at scale, every day. In fact, eight of the largest digital platforms in Australia have signed up to a voluntary, self-regulatory code of practice, to respond to mis- and disinformation.

It is very disappointing that those opposite are hesitant to support these measures—that they would prefer to play politics than to focus on keeping Australians safe online. The motion goes so far as to call for the bill to be binned.

But what is the shadow minister actually suggesting? Is he saying that the Australian government should do nothing to combat misinformation and disinformation? Is he suggesting we should leave the Australian regulator powerless in the face of this modern-day threat? The motion says the definition of 'misinformation' is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate. In fact, the definition sets a high bar and does not include all misinformation and disinformation. The definition covers content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is likely to cause or contribute to serious harm, that is provided on a digital service and spread at scale.

The motion also notes:

authorised content by the Government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Government by ordinary Australians can be misinformation …

The draft bill contains a number of exemptions to balance keeping Australians safe from serious harm with freedom of expression online. Those exemptions include content authorised by governments in Australia—by the Australian government or by a state, territory or local government. For example, state governments providing advice on social media to evacuate during a bushfire period would not be captured.

The motion also states that 'nothing an academic says can be misinformation', but' good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation'. That is plainly incorrect. In fact, the proposed powers would exempt educational content produced for all by accredited education providers.

The motion states:

journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation …

Professional news content is exempt from the proposed powers. The same definition for professional news as is used in the news media bargaining code has been applied in the draft bill.

Finally, it states:

if the Minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of the misinformation laws …

Designation of digital platforms in the communications portfolio isn't new. It was actually the Liberals and Nationals who introduced similar designation powers under the news media bargaining code legislation. What is the shadow minister suggesting about favoured platforms and the designation approach?

This draft legislation is not about censorship. It is about responding to a broadly recognised need to combat misinformation and disinformation and the harm that it causes to our kids and our communities. We understand that there is a balance to strike to ensure that any measure in the final legislation doesn't unduly impinge on freedom of speech. That's why the government put the draft bill through a thorough consultation process, encouraging submissions from the public, industry and the broader community. While we can't yet speak to what changes may be included in the updated draft, we remain committed to delivering a sensible, effective bill that combats the spread of misinformation and disinformation and the harm that they cause to our communities.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't believe that the government of the day, with this misinformation-disinformation bill, will not allow the Australian people to think for themselves. Do you think the Australian people are incapable of thinking through what is right and what is wrong in what they hear? They've done it for thousands of years. They've done for 200 years here, since the arrival of the First Fleet. They've done it throughout world history. People have sorted through what is misinformation and disinformation. Some of that proved to be absolutely correct. It was claimed to be misinformation, and it wasn't. It happened to be the truth, and any scholars, like those sitting opposite, would know that that is the case from history.

But don't listen to me. Listen to the Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, in an unprecedented intervention—and I know it is because I've been on the human rights committee of this parliament on a number of occasions and I'm currently deputy chair. So I know when there's an unprecedented intervention, and this is an unprecedented intervention by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. What on? On the misinformation and disinformation bill. This is what the highly respected Australian Human Rights Commissioner said. Lorraine Finlay warned that 'Labor's proposed laws to combat online misinformation could undermine democracy, erode public trust and jeopardise free speech'. Can that be any clearer? I'll read it again in case you missed it or you're being treated by this government in such a way that you can't think for yourself. I'll just read it again. She says, 'This bill could undermine democracy, erode public trust and jeopardise free speech.' That's a big call, and she's spot on.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Member for Monash. I'm sorry to tell you that the time allotted for this debate has expired.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's very disappointing.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand. There'll be further slots for you to talk on this another time. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.