Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. In my office I've had quite a bit of communication from constituents. I haven't had anyone that's been for it; they've all been against the bill. Some of the views can be quite extreme, which you'd expect; it tends to push a nerve with some people. I've had Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley's Brave New World quoted to me many times. There are also a lot of people out there who are probably not that extreme on the matter. There is a big question that everyone's asking. People say, 'We understand the intent of this bill, and everyone hates it when people are hurt by information that turned out not to be true, but the question is: is this bill going to alleviate those hurts, and will it eliminate them?' I would answer no to both questions.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is a basic human right, and this legislation threatens that right. I understand that maybe those out there who support this bill see it as a way of protecting people from information that may harm them. Sadly, people may be harmed by information. That has happened, and it will continue to happen. But the reverse is also true: information that, with the best intentions, might at first have been thought to be harmful turned out not to be harmful and in some cases was later proven to actually have been helpful.

The role of government is really complex. There's a balance between being too lax, leading to harm, and being too constrictive, which also leads to harm. Legislation and laws are there to protect us as a society and as individuals. If you hold a raw egg too loosely, you'll drop it, and there'll be a mess, but, if you squeeze it too tightly, there's also going to be a mess. This proposed bill is an example of squeezing too tightly, and, if it's passed, it'll create a mess.

Slowly but surely, this Labor government has been introducing and passing legislation that erodes our freedoms, all in the name of government control over our lives. History tells us that, when nations go down this path, there is a breaking point where their citizens say, 'No more.' Depending on the civilisation, the results have included revolutions and wars, as people are just fed up. Fortunately, in a democracy such as Australia, governments are peacefully voted out without bloodshed, and I for one am very grateful for that.

When I speak to constituents in the electorate of Longman, which I serve, I find that many are fast reaching the point of feeling strangled, whether it be the small-business owner who's had more and more red tape thrust upon them, fuelling the stress that they are enduring as the economy weakens; the consumer who is being forced to use digital IDs simply to go about everyday tasks; or the hardworking low- to middle-income workers who, under the latest legislation, will have to fund the HECS debts of doctors and lawyers who end up making three to five times what they will earn. That's right: every household in the country will have to contribute an extra $1,600 to the education of people who will earn much more than many of them will ever earn. That doesn't sound like the policy of a party that is supposed to be for the working class or the battler, does it?

In all cases, it is our right to speak what we believe and to listen to what we choose to listen to and then make a choice of what we will believe. Ironically, the very place I stand in, making this speech against this communist style bill, allows me the freedom to make this speech. Of course, there will be those who honestly believe that this will protect people from harm and should be implemented, but the question I ask these people is: who is the arbiter of truth? Who decides what is misinformation? The government? God help us all if that's the case. Bureaucrats? The social media companies? A few powerful individuals who control the media?

Of course, there will be those who say: 'Why do we have speed limits, then? Why not just allow freedoms in every aspect of life?' Well there's one difference here: we have data, and indisputable facts derived from that data, showing that speeding increases mortality rates. Hence, we have speed limits. However, it is your right to have an opinion about speed limits contrary to the laws, because your opinion won't kill people but breaking the law by speeding will increase the chances of your killing someone. We have laws in place where, if you feel you have been wronged or misled, you can proceed through the court system and seek justice there. Part of being human is the freedom to make your own choices and live with the consequences of these choices, both good and bad. If there's only one point of view on a subject, this is not a choice, and, without choice, our humanity is taken away from us.

The other component of this bill I despise is the implication that uneducated people have no value and aren't allowed to voice their opinion. I refer to the component of the bill that exempts academics, scientists and artists. I'm often bemused by the fact that many of the most successful people I know in business are the most uneducated and, in many cases, have the educated working for them. Yet, under this proposed legislation, their opinions and points of view, often learnt through real life and through enduring sometimes painful experiences, are regarded as having no value compared to those of someone who has learnt things in theory from a textbook. For me, information and opinions from both the educated and uneducated need to be available so I can watch or listen to both, as they both have value. That should always be my choice. Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs all have one thing in common—they didn't have a university degree when they started their businesses. They learnt on the job. But under this legislation, it could be that a YouTube video on success and business from one of these highly successful individuals, if whoever the almighty arbiter of truth has deemed their opinion and content as misinformation as they are not academics, could be banned.

What about when it comes to someone's own health? Speaking to many different people, I have people who swear by naturopathy, reiki, Bowen therapy, chiropractic—the list goes on and on. If the great arbiter of truth was driven by the AMA or big pharma, would any information from these alternative health providers, which may not meet the academic level, be banned under misinformation? No. All sides need to be able to put their point of view across or sell their message. Then it is up to the individual to make a choice on how they care for their body's health needs.

What about spiritual matters? Matters of religion and faith are extremely personal. More and more in our modern society, people who are searching for meaning in their life are using the internet and social media platforms to avail themselves of different points of view before making a decision. If the great arbiter of truth was an atheist, would that mean that information on Hindu, Muslim, Christian and all other faiths would be banned as misinformation? What if the great arbiter of truth was a Buddhist? Would that mean that all information about other faiths, including atheism and humanism, would be banned? The core problem is that the bill empowers digital platforms, government bureaucrats or whoever the great arbiter of truth is to determine whether or not a religious belief is reasonable. This point is well made in a submission on the bill by the combined faith leaders, representing a large number of faiths, including the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist churches and the Shiah Muslim community. The submission notes:

… that digital providers will be assessing whether the content of a religious belief is reasonable in determining whether or not it is misinformation. This is the same as saying that providers are empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself.

As the submission states, 'This 'reasonableness' test is highly inappropriate to be applied to religious speech.'

What's next? We tell people what to eat? We ban certain foods because we think they are bad for people? It's our right to choose to eat a nutritious diet, and, if we do so, normally this choice leads to a longer, happier life with fewer medical issues. It's also someone's right to make bad dietary choices, which can increase their chances of diabetes, obesity and a shortened life span. There is information that warns people of the consequences of unhealthy choices, but we respect their right to choose how they look after their body. History shows us that we were bombarded with information on how terrible it was to eat eggs, with a small minority disagreeing with this viewpoint who, in the end, were proved to be right. What if they'd been muzzled under misinformation? People still may not have been eating eggs and enjoying not only their delicious taste but their numerous health benefits.

I think there's a more sinister reason behind this bill, and that reason is political. This legislation would allow the government of the day to potentially ban any opinions that were contrary to their ideology. When you're from the Left, like the Labor-Greens coalition, this is appealing, as you can quash any opinions from those on the Right side of politics, which is why they, not us, are introducing this bill. I would personally hate to take away the right of those with socialist and communist ideologies to have their say. How can people know the beauty of the Right ideology if they have nothing to compare it to? Could it be that, deep down, they know that the Left ideology is flawed and always, ultimately, fails?

In contrast, I'm happy for both sides to be presented and debated, as I back what I believe in, and I am unafraid to defend these beliefs, as I truly believe they are best for our country and its citizens. To try and quash another point of view because you fear it is simply gutless and shows you don't back yourself and believe in your own ideologies. The difference between the coalition and the other side has never been more obvious than in our stances on this bill. While we may disagree with the Labor and Greens ideologies, I know that I will fight to the death for the right to express them, whereas, with bills such as this, they will do all they can to suppress us expressing our views. This is why I will not be supporting this bill.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was so much wrong with that speech from the member for Longman, it would take all of my 15 minutes to address all the points. The irony is that we're standing here talking about a bill about misinformation and disinformation and we had to listen to that contribution. Nobody is banning opinions. Nobody is banning the right to express an opinion or have a say. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is about addressing the spread of misinformation and disinformation. It's about the prevalence of fiction being portrayed as fact.

This is not simply an issue about copy-and-paste Facebook circulars that claim your data will be protected under the Rome statute if you post certain words on your timeline. It's a serious issue that has direct implications for public safety, democracy, societal cohesion and our national economy. The fact is all sorts of very serious people in our society, from national security agencies downwards, are saying this is a serious issue that requires addressing.

This misinformation and disinformation bill is an essential piece of legislation to protect Australians from the harms caused by false and misleading information. We've always had these sorts of protections in the past, with broadcast media and print media. But social media and the internet are an entirely new beast, in the pace of it and the way algorithms are used. We are dealing with a different ecosystem for the spread of information.

Our society has always functioned in a way where broadcast media and print media have been required by society to be truthful and factual, and there are consequences when they're not. So what's at risk? The fact is, online platforms have become essential parts of our lives, connecting us, at their best, with family, friends, news and the world at large. That's a good thing. Whether it's Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X or any other platform, we use these sites to entertain, stay connected and even find out information about issues affecting us locally and across the globe. It's an information-sharing thing. This connectivity has many benefits, but it also presents real risks. Digital platforms, when unregulated, can and do spread information at speeds and scales never seen before, amplifying misleading narratives that threaten our society's wellbeing and, indeed, targeting users with even more misinformation. If you seek information about a certain subject, the algorithm says, 'Oh, this guy is really interested in that; we'll pump in more of that,' and before you know it you're down a really deep well of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Suddenly, your nice, normal next-door neighbour is a raving lunatic.

The fact is, we live in a world where misinformation can impact public health, such as during COVID-19, when false information about vaccines and the benefits of vaccines circulated so rapidly. This is not a trivial issue. Misinformation led many to question or outright refuse life-saving medical treatment. We see it even now, with young children being refused life-saving medical treatment because their parents believe the nonsense on social media saying that somehow it's not good for their kids. It has led to a distrust in government, and I'm not talking about Labor governments or any other sort of government; I'm talking about government in general. It has led to a growing distrust in government and an overarching thought that there is no social cohesion and that the only person you can trust and stand behind is yourself. It's a dangerous narrative for any society that seeks to bring people together.

The spread of misinformation also affects our democratic processes, our societal cohesion and even our physical safety. The US election that's underway right now has been rife with battles of misinformation and disinformation. We do separate it. The fact is, people are allowed to express their opinions no matter how out there they are. Nobody is denying Sky After Dark's right to express its opinion on the Right of the political scale. You've got Fox News in America doing the same, expressing their opinion. You can do that in a democratic society. There's a difference between expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation. If nothing else, the nature of the 2024 presidential race is a case in point for why this bill is so important. There's also the last presidential election in the US and the claims that it was stolen. The misinformation and disinformation emanating from that shocking assault on the Capitol, and the disinformation that has arisen from that shows that fact is under attack.

On a local level, recent misinformation spread like wildfire following attacks in Southport and at Bondi Junction. Misleading narratives and false reports spread rapidly on social media, escalating public fear and, in some cases, inciting hatred against specific minority groups who it later turned out had nothing to do with those heinous crimes. Such events make it clear that when digital platforms do not adequately respond to harmful content on their platforms, the consequences are real and deeply felt by communities across Australia.

Let's remember that broadcast platforms are responsible for the content on their platforms. Print platforms—newspapers and magazines—are responsible for content on their platforms. Digital platforms should be held to the same standard. It is vital that we address the spread of misinformation and disinformation as a priority for our democracy. The concerns of everyday Australians reflect this urgency. Research from the Australian Media Literacy Alliance's Adult media literacy in Australia report published this year indicates that 80 per cent of Australians—eight in 10!—are worried about misinformation. It is amongst the highest levels of concern reported globally and highlights a serious erosion of trust in the digital information landscape right here at home. Australians are looking to their government to take meaningful action to ensure the information they encounter online is reliable, accurate and safe. They don't want the government to buy into misinformation pushes and propaganda.

I don't deny that the digital platform industry and some specific social media platforms have taken some steps to seek to tackle misinformation and disinformation, but it has not been enough. The industry as a whole has a variety of voluntary codes. Not enough is being done. They make a lot of money in this country; they can spend more to deal with this. One example of the industry's attempts is the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. It's a code designed to tackle misinformation and disinformation. It's an initiative I welcome, but this code has some clear and undeniable limitations. The transparency reports produced under the code have been inconsistent, lacking the Australia-specific data necessary for effective monitoring and assessment. The voluntary code, while a step in the right direction, has not been enough to meet the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation online in Australia—and I don't buy the arguments about why it can't be done. The fact is if you're talking to your wife about some shoes that you like, somehow it ends up in your feed. Somehow there are ads popping up for those shoes. If they know that, they can deal with this. They're clever enough to have very sophisticated data-tracking and management systems. They can put some of that knowledge to work and deal with misinformation and disinformation. That's why this legislation is necessary.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, has repeatedly urged the government to introduce regulatory powers to hold digital platforms accountable. Now ACMA's not some big tsar of information and truth, which is what the member for Longman suggested. It doesn't want to sit there with a god-like status telling people what they can and can't believe. It's nothing like that. It's a trusted regulatory body. Those opposite, who are the alternative government of this country, should not be spreading distrust in government agencies.

ACMA's insights highlight the critical need for stronger enforceable standards that ensure digital platforms are transparent about how they handle misinformation and that they take concrete steps to protect users from harmful content. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 answers that call. It amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and makes consequential changes to related legislation, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021. Through these amendments, the bill establishes a regulatory framework that empowers ACMA to oversee digital platforms and ensure that they responsibly manage misinformation and disinformation on their services.

The bill has three primary objectives, each carefully crafted to address community concerns. No. 1 is to require digital platforms to manage the risks of misinformation and disinformation. Under the bill, digital platforms will now be legally obligated to assess, mitigate and take responsibility for the potential harms caused by misinformation and disinformation in Australia. I repeat that these sorts of measures already exist in broadcast and print media. We're just bringing digital media into the fold. No. 2 is to increase transparency. Digital platforms will now be required to disclose the actions they are taking to combat harmful content, ensuring the public can see and understand those efforts. No. 3 is to empower users. Australians who use digital media should be equipped with the tools to critically engage with information online. By providing transparency, platforms can empower users to make informed decisions and identify false information themselves.

We know that tackling misinformation and disinformation online is everybody's job and can only be achieved by all users critically engaging in the content they receive online. I say that at a time when we see things like deepfakes emerging. Technology has become so incredibly advanced that videos can emerge online of people, just random people, purporting to be national leaders or celebrities, whoever they are, and the average user has no idea that what they are seeing and hearing is fake. There's no way to discern it, because the technology is just so good. And that spreads like wildfire. 'Look at what this political leader has said!' People believe it, and then they spread the chain. The digital platforms have to be responsible for tackling that. They have to be responsible for that.

This bill will also provide ACMA with a series of new powers to hold digital platforms accountable in fulfilling these three primary objectives. No. 1 is transparency and accountability, because transparency is essential to this legislation. Under the new framework, digital platforms are required to disclose their efforts to combat harmful misinformation and disinformation. This includes publishing a clear media literacy plan, detailing the steps they are taking to empower users in identifying and responding to false information. This requirement empowers Australians with the knowledge they need to navigate online content more confidently and critically. In addition, platforms will be required to publish policy documents on how they handle misinformation and disinformation and the results of any risk assessments they have conducted. This level of transparency is fundamental to public trust. Australians need to know that digital platforms are taking their safety and wellbeing seriously.

No. 2 is information gathering and record keeping. Another critical component of the bill is information and record-keeping powers. ACMA will have the authority to obtain information from digital platforms on their efforts to address harmful content. Platforms will be required to maintain records of their actions and may be called upon to provide these records to ACMA periodically. This creates a clear accountability trail, allowing regulators and the public to track a platform's progress over time and understand how they are evolving their strategies to combat misinformation. The bill includes protections for end users in this process. The information-gathering powers are designed to protect individuals' privacy, as they do not apply to content posted by regular users unless those individuals are employees, content moderators, fact checkers or otherwise providing services to the platform provider. The example used by the member for Longman about people being able to express an opinion about the health impact of eggs—totally safe. This approach balances the need for transparency with the protection of personal privacy.

No. 3 is the code and standard making powers. Under the bill, ACMA will have the power to register industry codes and make enforceable standards if voluntary efforts are inadequate. This ability to set standards is essential because it provides a regulatory backstop. Should voluntary measures prove ineffective, ACMA will be able to require platforms to implement specific practices. We're also safeguarding freedom of expression. I'm sure other speakers will go into detail on that.

The fact is that this bill is needed. Agencies say that it's needed. We live in a time where misinformation and disinformation are absolutely rife, where technology is providing things like deepfakes and a hostile and deliberate way for misinformation and disinformation to be spread, not as an accident but as a deliberate way to affect our democracy. This bill will help deal with that and will hold digital media platforms to the same sort of account as broadcast and print media.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all get up here every day of parliament and talk about bills we are passionate about and about bills we have strong opinions on. I say this sincerely: the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill is the most dangerous, scary bill that I personally have ever got up to speak about. I am really, really scared.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone laughs? Yes, that's a kind of a difference of opinion. That says it straight away—we can't have a difference of opinion. I will read out Voltaire. Voltaire, a French philosopher, said: 'I disagree with everything you have said but I will defend every day your right to say it.' Members opposite might want to dwell on that because that is what this bill is undermining—I disagree with everything you say but I will defend your right to say it. What this Labor radical left-wing government is doing is abandoning that principle. This government does not want to defend our right to say things that they disagree with and that is what this is about, so why would you want to do that?

I'm surprised that we are debating this issue at this level in Australia. You might want to say, 'What is the motivation of a government to do this?' In this radical left-wing government, their motivation on this bill is control. When you want to clamp down on free speech in this country, you are about control. They do not want everyone necessarily to be able to say what that person believes is the truth, because, at the end of the day, one person's misinformation is another person's opinion. We always say great ceremonial things about our diggers and veterans, as we should, across both sides of this chamber but our diggers fought for stuff like this. The basis of free speech in this country has always been respected, and I cannot believe we are debating this right in this chamber today.

This is a very slippery slope. The other side will get up and say, 'ACMA is independent. It is a government body. It is just looking for misinformation.' Well, how are you going to define it? How is somebody going to define what is misinformation? I assume a lot of people have read 1984 by George Orwell. This is all about the ministry of truth. Some anonymous person, if this bill goes through, is going to have the right to say and decide what individuals will be able to say on platforms, and this is a slippery, slippery slope.

Again, I think it is about control. One of the reasons that this government is so motivated about this at the moment is the Voice referendum. The government of the day—this government today—criticised people through the Voice referendum, saying that misinformation was being spread. What was the misinformation that was being spread? Was it because people disagreed with them? Was it because some people had legitimate concerns. Some people's opinion was that it was going to divide us by race. That was people's opinion. They say that is misinformation. Some people had huge constitutional questions about the Voice referendum—that it was going to have huge constitutional ramifications. Are we now not allowed to say that? The government of the day, the Prime Minister of the day, many members on that side have said that misinformation was spread about that. Is that what the person in ACMA is going to decide—that, if you have a difference of opinion on things, you can't say that? Is the person in ACMA going to decide that, if we had the Voice referendum and they had these powers, they would take down commentary on the Voice referendum that said that this is going to divide our country by race? Is that what the ACMA person's going to decide? That's what the government thinks it was. The government thinks it was misinformation. If you have constitutional concerns about it, and people say, 'Well, you shouldn't have constitutional concerns about it,' because of whatever their opinion was, is the ACMA person going to say, 'Well, I agree that that's misinformation,' because of their opinion on it, and clamp down on free speech in this country?

The member who spoke before me used the example of vaccines. Personally, I supported the vaccine rollout in Australia through COVID, but I don't want people who didn't agree with that to be quietened just because they disagreed with the conventional view from the medical profession. If a person did have that opinion, in this country they should have the right to say it. The member opposite used that as an example of something that they shouldn't have been able to say. Again, I refer to Voltaire: 'I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend every day your right to say it.' That is under threat in Australia.

Why do I say that this is a radical left-wing government that we have in Australia right now? Because there is no other Western country that has given a government entity this much power. The UK and the US don't have this type of law. No other Western country has this. Again, that's why this is a very dangerous, radical, extreme left-wing government that we have here.

Do you know what you can't do either? I could say something in this chamber, where I am protected by parliamentary privilege, thankfully. But, if I say something in the parliament and it's recorded, as it is, an individual may not be able to post that on a platform, because ACMA may decide that what I've said is misinformation. So, if an individual reposts what I've said in this chamber, ACMA could actually take that down off a platform. That hasn't been negated by the minister with this bill, because she's been asked a question about that in a briefing.

So that's how scary this is. You can say whatever you like as long as you agree with the radical left-wing government. That's what this rule is about. I'm not going to call it ACMA anymore. If this bill passes, ACMA no longer exists. It will be called the Ministry of Truth, like the entity in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, because those will be the powers they will have.

You might say: 'Okay, how is it going to work in practice? What will ACMA have the power to do?' Take podcasts. Suppose you have a podcast, and someone thinks that podcast contains misinformation. The dangerous thing about this is that the platform owners will always lean on the side of taking the information down rather than leaving it there, because the penalties and fines that ACMA will impose on them are severe. If you're a platform, you will say, 'Well, I don't want ACMA to come along and say: "You've left up this podcast by this individual, or this interview that we did with someone. We're not going to let that stay up."' Platforms are going to lean towards taking it down because of the severity of the fines that ACMA will impose on them.

This is very dangerous stuff. It takes in podcasts, message boards and aggregate news. There's no other word to describe it except 'censorship'. Again, should this surprise me? Maybe not, because any radical and extreme government wants control. If you look at history, you will see that any extreme right-wing or left-wing government always wants to control the press and the information that is out there.

Again—I will do it a couple of times through this speech—I refer to a great philosopher and to the great saying 'I disagree with everything you say, but every day I will protect the right for you to say that.' But that's not the essence of this bill. That is not how the minister thinks about this. I'm assuming that the whole of the Labor Party will vote for this bill. When you talk about free speech, there is not a lot of free speech within the Labor caucus, because, if you have a difference of opinion publicly and you're in caucus, you get kicked out of the party. That says something about their ideas about free speech. I'm assuming the Greens will do so as well. So free speech doesn't come easily to them in some ways.

I just want to talk about some people's comments. You would say this, because you're a partisan politician on the other side of the chamber, Deputy Speaker, but I want to give you some quotes from some third parties. The NSW Solicitor General said this bill is 'based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement'. That's a good point. They're basically saying: 'We can't trust you to see through things that are mistruths. We don't trust you as individuals to be able to see what is truth and what is not truth, so we'll protect you from it.' That's just justifying, again, shutting down free speech. The Victorian Bar Association have said:

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.

Again, free will is gone under this. There have been some minor adjustments to this bill. Victorian barrister Peter A Clarke said, 'It's like lipstick on a pig.' He said: 'To capture political content was a change for the worst. Politics involves a lot of commentary and a lot of loose language. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's disinformation or misinformation.' The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have said:

… this bill is unsatisfactory. If the government says there are deficiencies—

because, again, the other thing here is we have laws already that have prohibitions on some things you can and can't say. You can't defame people. If you go out and say something about someone that is untrue, there are defamation laws already that protect people. You can't go out and say X about someone and just get away with that. They can take you through a defamation process. To go back, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have said, 'This bill is unsatisfactory.' Professor Nick Coatsworth, the former deputy chief health officer, said:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse …

The Australian Christian Lobby have said:

There is no excuse for what's 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.

Again I make the point that there are protections already in our legal system. You can't go out and incite violence in our country. There are existing laws about that and to clamp down on that. You can't go out and defame people, because there are laws about defaming people. But this law is about clamping down on free speech in Australia. It's the most radical legislation on this issue around the Western world.

I understand that Labor were disappointed that they lost the Voice referendum. I understand that they don't like the fact that people disagree with them. I understand the fact that the Prime Minister doesn't like memes of him that look silly. But this is a democracy. Our diggers fought for free speech. I've heard politicians on both sides of this parliament say, 'I disagree with everything you say but will defend your right to say it.' That has now been abandoned by this radical left-wing government.

This bill will obviously pass this chamber in the next 24 hours because Labor have no choice. Labor have to lock in, and they can't have a difference of opinion in this chamber and across the floor. But shame on this government. You have started us down a very slippery slope where some faceless bureaucrat, who we will now call the ministry for truth, will decide what individuals can or can't say on social media platforms. When this legislation goes through, I think it's probably the saddest day and the saddest piece of legislation I've seen for the freedoms and liberties of our country, and everyone who votes for this should be absolutely ashamed of what they are doing.

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

If ever there was an example of free speech being alive and well, that was it. There is little I can agree with—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But an individual won't be able to post it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear my colleague the wonderful member for Newcastle and the concerns that she has about the issue of misinformation and disinformation, and there is so much of what she says that I absolutely agree with. We are all concerned about our children, our grandchildren and young adults who are not listening to good news—that is, accurate news—and we in this place have a responsibility to get that right. However, we also have to make sure that there are not consequences that we do not intend by implementing legislation passed in this House.

Our role on this side of the House is to ask questions and to vote according to our priorities. Before I begin talking about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is about combating misinformation and disinformation, I want to talk about the misinformation being propagated by the national broadcaster, the ABC, because it is incredibly relevant to this bill.

Exhibit A: the ABC broadcasted in late August and early September claims linking decades of use of paraquat and diquat herbicides to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in farmers. The story portrayed a hotspot in my electorate of Mallee. I am not saying that there isn't a Parkinson's hotspot or similar and, as the shadow assistant minister for regional health, the incidence of Parkinson's in my electorate concerns me greatly. If there is a causal link then we want to get to the bottom of it. I have been advocating for years for funding to support movement disorder nurses and support across Mallee with no success at this point in time. The fact is that there is no evidence that there is a causal link to Parkinson's disease from the use of these chemicals, and the ABC portrayed historical practices as if they are occurring today.

Currently the APVMA is reviewing dosages of paraquat and diquat, I respect the independence of the APVMA, who were effectively also attacked by the ABC as being in the pocket of the chemical companies. You can talk all you like about the editorial independence of the ABC, but they must put facts in their claims or they will actually become a disreputable source of news—misinformation, if you like. Radio ratings certainly indicate that Australians are switching off the ABC. Significant reduction of paraquat dosage will mean a return to heavy tillage farming. This will radically impact the people in my electorate. It actually will impact of the people in Sydney because you do not want Mallee dust all over your city. As Ron Hards from Werrimull in my electorate told me, the low dosages being discussed are so low you might as well pee in the corner of the paddock—that's how much use it will be.

Constituents and peak bodies are coming to me very concerned about this and very grateful for the motion that I moved in the federal chamber this week on this topic. They are beyond dismayed at the ABC Landline program on the issue, so much so that the APVMA issued a statement critical of the ABC making that connection and, most importantly, highlighted that we are talking about historical practices, such as the portrayal of a farmer ducking as a crop duster sprayed chemicals over him as he applied chemicals on a farm. Nobody is suggesting that children are being exposed to herbicides or that farmers are being drenched in herbicides today, because modern practices have changed. Sealed cabins and sealed systems for herbicide use are the norm. The representation by the ABC tried to link hardworking farmers and others from my electorate who are dealing with Parkinson's disease and who are not making that direct link themselves. The editorialising by the ABC in claiming the link was sensationalist and arguably doling out misinformation.

Exhibit B is fake gunshots. When it comes to misleading use of footage or audio, we had the ABC in Senate estimates this week admitting that it had added additional gunshots to footage of Australian troops in a helicopter deployed in Afghanistan in 2012. This was disgraceful behaviour on the part of the ABC.

Exhibit C is a government official from the US state of Georgia who, last month, took issue over the ABC Four Corners program's misinformation about their Vogtle nuclear power plant, with the program host claiming that the plant had not reduced power prices but put them up. But the vice-chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, Tim Echols, said that the plant was not the primary source of rate increases and that the ABC's failure to mention other sources of price increases had amounted to misinformation. For instance, there is, firstly, the amount of gas that the USA has been shipping to Europe to help combat the flow of Russian gas and, secondly, the cost of new grid infrastructure to accommodate electricity generated from solar panels. It might relate to Australia. These are just a few examples where the ABC goes on an ideological crusade, putting the narrative ahead of the facts, then shaping the content to suit the narrative—or, as some call it, fake news. The point is that, if we are going to combat misinformation and spend $1 billion a year financing a public broadcaster, they have to get their facts right and not engage in misinformation themselves.

Getting back to the bill, this is the Albanese Labor government's second attempt at regulating what people can and cannot say online. Their first attempt drew 20,000 submissions opposed to the proposal. The coalition campaigned to bin the bill, and the bin is where it ended up. The trouble is that Labor has done a dumpster dive to bring up a new bill that is worse than the first one. The bill comes late in a parliamentary term during which this government has had plenty of time to get the settings right. They also have their anti-doxxing and hate crime amendment bills before parliament. I'm very concerned that sitting days are running out and that this government may be readying the guillotine on this and even other bills when there are very serious implications to be considered in relation to each. That is what debate is about.

In this misinformation do-over—act 2, if you like—the government ran a ridiculously short seven-day consultation process which minimised the number of submissions and objections that could actually be made. I can assure the House that Mallee constituents have been making many, many submissions to my inbox, with this being the No. 1 topic raised with me in recent months, given the government's ridiculously short timeline for so-called consultation. This bill is so bad that the coalition has already pledged to repeal the bill if it becomes law. The provisions of the bill are extremely broad and would capture many things said by Australians every day. Under the bill, the honestly held opinions of Australians can be deemed to be misinformation. Digital platforms are required to identify whether or not pieces of content are misinformation. The process of identifying this misinformation is highly subjective and will lead to the suppression of free speech of everyday Australians. Concerned about religious freedom, faith leaders have united in protest at the attempt to have the government regulate what is 'reasonable' religious belief, as opposed to 'unreasonable', and this too is highly concerning. In other parts of the world, persecution of people of faith occurs because the government determines that certain beliefs, teachings or practices are contrary to government policy.

We have criminal laws for people who commit criminal acts, even though we have seen a hole in the law recently when people held up flags or symbols of listed terrorist organisations. It's concerning that the government seems more focused on acting like religious police, deciding what is or isn't a reasonable religious belief and turning a blind eye to promotion of terrorism through religious fundamentalism in Australia. The right to hold and communicate religious beliefs is one of the most fundamental in any democracy. Spirituality is the domain of the individual, not the state. We need government for many things. Determining whether our religious beliefs are reasonable is not one of them. The Albanese government's misinformation bill represents a clear and present danger to the open communication of religious beliefs in Australia. Remarkably, Mr Albanese and his communications minister, Michelle Rowland, want this bill to become the law of Australia by the end of the year. This simply must not happen.

There are many serious problems with this bill, but it is notable how many religious groups have zeroed in on the risks it represents to people of faith. The core problem is that the bill empowers digital platforms and government bureaucrats to determine whether a religious belief is reasonable. This point is well made in a submission on the bill by the combined faith leaders, representing a large number of faiths, including the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist churches and the Shia Muslim community. The submission notes:

… digital providers will be assessing whether the content of a religious belief is reasonable in determining whether or not it is misinformation. This is the same as saying that providers are empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself.

Everyday Australians are captured by this bill, but some groups are excluded from its operation. For instance, any reasonable dissemination of material for an academic, scientific or artistic purpose is excluded from the bill, but if an everyday Australian disagrees with an academic then he or she will have committed the crime of misinformation. This is outrageous and creates two classes of speech in Australia: one for favoured groups, like academics, and one for everybody else. Here is a sample of the objections to the bill.

The Victorian Bar Association stated:

Speech about political, philosophical, artistic or religious topics often involves statements that are not straightforwardly 'factual', but which are not mere statements of subjective belief. Much scientific discourse involves the testing and rejection of hypotheses, in which even 'true' information is provisional or falsifiable. The prospect that ACMA—and digital platform providers—will be required to identify not merely misleading facts, but also misleading 'claims', 'opinions', 'commentary' and 'invective', will have an obvious chilling effect on freedom of speech; especially in sensitive or controversial areas.

The Institute of Public Affairs have highlighted the reliance that social media platforms have on fact checkers, who, they argue, failed the nation during the Voice to Parliament referendum. The IPA say they analysed 187 fact-checking articles relating to the Voice to Parliament between 22 May 2022 and 14 October 2023 and found that an overwhelming 170 articles, or 91 per cent of fact checks, assessed claims made by opponents of the Voice. In the same period, Australian fact checkers assessed just 17 claims made by proponents of the Voice. This is despite over 60 per cent of Australians rejecting the Voice to Parliament on 14 October 2023.

The IPA notes that six months before the referendum my Nationals colleague, shadow minister for Indigenous affairs Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, argued that fact checkers were complicit in perpetuating the false claim that the Voice was a 'modest proposal'. In April 2023 she highlighted the disproportionate targeting of the 'no' campaign, noting: 'The fact checkers go all out on wrongly fact-checking basic rhetorical claims we've made but never examine any of the statements from Voice supporters.' To be accredited by the IFCN, fact checkers must uphold a commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness and not concentrate their fact checking on any one side. As the IPA's research uncovered, Australians can have no confidence that this is the case with domestic fact checkers.

The Australian Christian Lobby said that the definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', together with the threat of severe penalties for digital platform providers who do not comply, are a recipe for overcensorship. Where the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, instead they will be requiring digital platforms to control our public discourse. In essence, ACMA becomes the ministry of truth. If that doesn't chill you, you have a problem. From public health to politics, the economy and ideology, ACMA will determine what you are allowed to say online. (Time expired)

Jodie Belyea (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This is an important bill that will seek to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to protect Australians from online harm, an issue prevalent in our society today. This bill will make amendments to the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021.

In today's world, this bill is needed to ensure there is transparency and accountability around the efforts of digital platforms in combating mis- and disinformation on their services. The reality is we just don't know what these platforms are doing or what systems they have in place to prevent the spread of harmful information. As a mum of a son who has just finished year 12, I know how harmful misinformation and disinformation are to our children and young people. The widespread adoption of digital platforms means that our children and young people are exposed to all sorts of information with varying degrees of facts and factual information.

There is no doubt that social media has brought many benefits to us as individuals, and as a community it enables us to connect with family and friends beyond traditional geographic boundaries across the world. We can keep up to date with those we love who may not live near us and be digitally present for the most important moments in their lives. We can create community groups that connect with our friends, sporting groups and neighbours, building a thriving and connected community. As members of parliament, we rely heavily on digital platforms to increasingly communicate important information with our constituents. This began some years ago with a simple photo; now most of my colleagues are creating videos and reels to share important information.

These facts can exist while acknowledging that digital platforms in their current form are also causing significant harm to people in our community because these platforms lack regulatory systems and processes to hold them accountable. Regulation will ensure that information shared on digital platforms is factual, not mis- or disinformation. This is incredibly important because digital platforms can be a vehicle that spreads misleading and false information that is seriously harmful to Australians, in particular children, young people and older people.

There have been some concerns about the right to freedom of expression being impacted because of the introduction of this bill. I've heard this from constituents from Dunkley who have contacted my electorate office to convey their concerns. But we know this: Australia is the best democracy in the world, and I welcome the opportunities I get to meet and hear from people in my electorate. People in this country can exercise their right to freedom of speech. One such opportunity lies in their ability to contact local MPs electorate offices to give their opinions and recommendations, as they have done recently in relation to this bill.

To those who have been contacting my office to oppose this bill, you have been and will continue to be given the time of day at my office and we will continue to listen to your concerns, ideas and suggestions on this and many other issues. You will continue to have the opportunity to leave ideas and thoughts in the comments of my digital pages, as long as they are respectful. This is not going to change, because the right to freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy. It is a right our government takes very seriously. It is a right that I take very seriously.

This bill does not jeopardise people's individual rights to freedom of expression. Rather, it is focused on taking action to ensure that digital platforms have measures in place to stop the rapid spread of seriously harmful mis- and disinformation. That sort of information poses a significant threat to the wellbeing of people of all ages and challenges the functioning of societies around the world.

This is a step in the right direction for many community advocates who have lived experience of the harms of digital platforms. Take, for example, the initiative of Wayne Holdsworth, who members of parliament may know from his organisation SmackTalk and who recently launched Unplug24. Unplug24 was established by Wayne Holdsworth, a local Dunkley legend, whose son took his own life last year after being sexually extorted online. Mac was a 17-year-old boy with his life ahead of him. Wayne, despite his grief, has dedicated his time to sharing his own story to support other young people and parents to understand the dangers and threats that digital platforms can pose without proper systems, processes and regulations in place. Digital platforms in the hands of the wrong people can spread mis- and disinformation, which impacts individuals' wellbeing and—in the case of Wayne's son, Mac—can be very harmful, to the extent that it can end in the tragic loss of life.

This bill and the amendments act to address some of these challenges. It acts to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with new powers to ensure there is transparency and accountability around the efforts of digital platforms in combating mis- and disinformation on their services. Currently, digital platforms are not open about this information, with little accountability for what measures they actually have in place on these platforms to prevent mis- and disinformation. This bill delivers on the promise that ACMA powers meet community expectations. This bill will give ACMA the powers to assess the digital platforms' systems and processes to prevent harmful information dissemination and improve transparency about what actual measures platforms have in place to protect Australians from the harm associated with mis- and disinformation on their services.

We are intent on protecting Australians and preventing and improving with this bill. Put simply, the bill seeks to improve our voluntary code by providing a regulatory safety net if digital platforms fail to provide adequate protections for the community and its people. This bill will impose transparency obligations. Digital platforms will be required to be honest about what they are doing on their service to combat mis- and disinformation.

The proposed government amendments would establish new obligations for digital platforms to make available their policy approach, to share their data for the purposes of research and to empower ACMA to make digital platform rules regarding the publication of data access policy approaches. There would also be new provisions which would enable ACMA to create digital platform rules that would require digital platform providers to operate a data access scheme for independent research. The scheme would be centred on data relating to the identification, assessment and mitigation of misinformation and disinformation risks on the relevant platform.

The Labor government is taking the need to protect and support community members from the harms of content on digital platforms seriously. This bill sits alongside many other measures, including the introduction of age limits for young people. We must build better systems and tools for digital platforms to regulate them and to hold them accountable for disseminating factual information. We must mitigate misinformation that erodes trust, safety and transparency. We must mitigate misinformation that erodes democracy to keep democracy alive. This bill is about ensuring we have facts, not fiction, to inform our democracy and to keep Australian citizens safe.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not up to the government via ACMA to decide or dictate what the truth actually is. I am proud that we, the coalition, oppose this Draconian legislation and will repeal it in government because freedom of speech is an absolute fundamental to our democracy. By contrast, it is the clear intent of the Labor government to censor, silence, control, find and punish Australians for our online content by imposing and enforcing obligations on digital platforms. This is the most antidemocratic, anti-free-speech legislation I have seen since coming into this parliament in 2007. I actually never thought I would see the day when in this country, a proud country that is globally acknowledged and highly respected as a liberal democratic society, we would be debating a bill that is explicitly designed to censor and silence the Australian people, to deny us our freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, to deny Australians the right to frank, fearless and honest debates.

We need to hear the views of people we disagree with. But what I believe Labor is really doing is preventing anyone who disagrees with the government from having their say, especially in the run to the election. The government will control what we read, see, hear and share online in the election campaign via ACMA. Labor is seeking to directly prevent anyone who disagrees with the government from having their say. This is a bill that strikes at the very heart of free speech, a key pillar of Australia's hard-fought-for and protected democratic freedoms and liberties. Over 103,000 Australian servicemen and women have fought and died for our democratic values. One of those was my sister's dad—my mother's husband—who was killed in Papua New Guinea in World War II. They fought to protect and preserve our healthy functioning democracy, a democracy that not only requires but should demand freedom of speech, where a diversity of ideas, views and opinions right across the ideological and political spectrum are encouraged, openly discussed, both agreed with and disagreed with.

However, the Labor government has decided to deliberately silence its own citizens, to legally enforce and silence debate, to shut down debate on issues that matter to Australians and to deny us the right to informed choice. Our informed choice will only be what the government approves of. This bill will deliberately suppress and remove online debate by Australians. Unfortunately, once again, Labor are determined to divide us as they tried to do with the Voice. However, this time, Labor is dividing us by the chosen ones who will have the right to freedom of speech online and those of us who will not have the right to freedom of speech online. Labor's special chosen ones, those who will have the right to freedom of speech no matter what they say will be academics, scientists, artists—the people who Labor clearly believe have a superior intellect to the rest of us. Labor's chosen ones will have the right to free speech on key and critical issues that matter to all Australians, even if it is misinformation and disinformation around critical political, health, social, economic and every other issue. Imagine not being able to disagree online about budget decisions, climate policies, Labor's renewable-only energy policy, women's safe spaces and anything else in fact. Those of us who are not the chosen ones will be bound by the Labor's broad definitions of misinformation and disinformation enforced by ACMA—Labor's truth police unit.

Misinformation is described as information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive. Disinformation has the same definition but also adds the content 'with grounds to suspect the person sharing it intends that the content deceives or it involves inauthentic behaviour'. Well, good luck with that. The rules for this will be dictated by whatever the government and its truth police—ACMA—decide. Gone will be our right to share our genuinely and honestly held opinions through frank and fearless discussion and open access to the great contest of ideas and diversity of opinions online.

For practical purposes, the Labor government will direct and empower ACMA to force online platforms to remove content before Australians are actually allowed to see the content. Can you just imagine how the Chinese government will be rubbing its hands at the opportunity it will have to instruct TikTok to remove massive amounts of Australians' legitimate content online? That will be content that the Chinese government doesn't approve of. It will be removed under the protection provided by this Labor legislation to curate China's own message or propaganda, and we will never know exactly what the Chinese government has removed because it will be gone before we see it. It's madness.

We will see the major American platforms controlling and removing Australians' content online, outsourced probably to factcheckers like the discredited politically biased RMIT factcheck. We will not be allowed to see, hear, read or share alternative views and opinions online. The online platforms will be forced by law to remove any of this before we're even allowed to see it.

I have great respect for Chris Merritt, the Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, who said that 'good law must be clear and certain with requirements that are capable of being known in advance, not determined by officials'. He also said:

One of the fundamental features of Australia's system of government is that everyone has a responsibility to make their own assessments about public policy debates.

That means accepting that part of the price of living in a free society is that flawed ideas should be free to circulate alongside those that are worthy.

Telling the difference is the role of an informed citizenry, not governments and their officials.

That's exactly what this government is trying to do. Make no mistake: this is complex and simply bad legislation. We actually won't know what's being removed and what we're missing out on because we won't see it at all. The platforms will have wiped it off before we see it. We won't even know when ACMA—Labor's 'truth police'—get it wrong and force platforms to remove information that later proves to be true. We won't even know what truthful original information was there because we won't see it in the first place.

I can't find any process or publication of removed information, no penalties or outcomes for the 'truth police', ACMA, when they get it wrong—which they will—or who or what will monitor, measure and report on ACMA's decisions. Who will adjudicate and decide that the government, ACMA, the platforms or the factcheckers have made a mistake in removing accurate information when later evidence proves that it was true? Will those posts and comments be reinstated and fines repaid? Who will represent the rights of ordinary Australians in this instance? What will the penalties be for the removal of accurate information? Will there be damages paid to the individuals and/or the platforms affected? Who will pay? Will it be Australian taxpayers? The legislation and definitions are so broad that you could drive what my family would call a D11 Dozer through them. They're so wideranging, open-ended and subjective. There are terms such as 'grounds to suspect', 'reasonably likely to cause, or contribute to, serious harm' or 'the intention to deceive'. I could not find any definition or test for what actually constitutes 'reasonably verifiable' or 'false, misleading or deceptive'. Simply put, the truth will be what the Labor government, via ACMA, says that it is.

What also concerns me is that Labor is doing this because they think Australians are stupid. They think that we are so stupid that we can't work out for ourselves whether what we see, read and hear online is accurate and reasonable or is extreme and wrong. I've done hundreds of cybersafety presentations to kids. I ask the kids, 'How many of you believe that everything you read, see and hear online is true?' Very few hands have ever gone up, no matter what the age group is. I encourage the kids to develop their own critical thinking. If kids understand this, why doesn't this current government? Why does the government think that we are really all so stupid that we don't understand that not everything we read, see and hear online is true? I think the government believes that we don't have the common sense.

Australia is a democracy, and that's something that I take very seriously. We actually have the right to freedom of speech and to use and develop our own critical thinking and judgement. It's part of our responsibility as adults to work out the difference between fact and fiction. We have the right to actively decide what games, platforms, apps, sites and digital technologies we use and which we stay away from. The importance of media and information literacy should be encouraged, not discouraged by simply cowering behind, and being controlled by, ACMA or Labor's truth police like zombies who can't think and act for themselves, who in fact need to have a Big Brother government on their shoulders every single minute of the day or whenever they're online. It is not up to the government to decide what the truth is.

I am very concerned about this legislation. It is not right that we only see what the government believes we have a right to see. I don't want to be living in a vacuum—a political vacuum or any other form of vacuum. I don't want to see anything designed to suppress alternative political opinions or other opinions or to filter out alternative views. I don't want to see anything designed to stop us disagreeing online with the government of the day. Unfortunately, Labor want to make sure, by controlling what information we get to see, that any future referendum they propose is probably never defeated again by a 60-to-40 majority by the Australian people.

We will never see those alternative views or the truth online, again creating division in Australia: the chosen ones, who can express all of their views online, and the rest of us, who cannot. It is not okay that the Labor government are dividing us into those they think are smart or intelligent enough to know what is accurate online—the media, academics, scientists, artists and those involved in parody or satire. They must all have superior intelligence. These people can say what they like online, right or wrong. Whether or not it's Labor's definition of misinformation or disinformation, they can share it. Academics can have two opposing opinions, but ordinary Australians can't discuss this online. If you're a neurosurgeon, doctor, pharmacist, lawyer, heavy-duty mechanic, nurse, teacher, retail worker, aged-care worker, childcare worker or one of so many others—who will have the right? But, unfortunately, we are the ones to whom the Labor government believes it can dictate what we can and can't read, see, hear or share online.

Unfortunately, we will see Canberra based bureaucrats setting up a totally new bureaucracy to police this. I take great exception to Australians' freedom of speech being compromised in any way, shape or form. I don't want to see Australians living in an information bubble that is controlled by Canberra based bureaucrats. I'm not quite sure what qualifies those in ACMA to be the only ones who know what the truth actually is. I really object to this. I cannot imagine what would have happened in Western Australia, under what was the then Labor government's horrendous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, if this legislation were enforced and the people who highlighted the many problems that were embedded in that act weren't able to air them online. This is the risk, that the information we get will be only that which the government of the day wants us to have. I would have to ask: are we living in Australia or China?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good point.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a good point. Australia or Russia? I chose to live in Australia. I love the place, and I love the rights and freedoms.

Every time we do a citizenship ceremony, freedom of speech comes up as one of the things that we are so proud of. We in this place should be protecting at all costs those rights and freedoms that people from around the world come here to be able to enjoy, that they often can't in the country that they've come from. Yet here we are discussing something that is deliberately putting those rights at risk. Fake news has been around forever in all sorts of forms. It is up to each one of us to decide what that is and to act accordingly. It is not up to the government to decide what the truth is. I am profoundly concerned that this bill is even before the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the previous speaker, I think you're about to hear a quite different speech. Each time a technology is invented which holds transformative potential, it brings with it a fresh set of opportunities and risks. The printing press was the foundation of mass communication but was used as a tool for propagandistic social control. Television revolutionised the news media and brought the world home to people's lounge rooms, drawing them far closer to political events—at times, viscerally so. The internet has enabled instant communication but, in doing so, has exposed us to unforeseen social risk, has eroded public trust in traditional democratic institutions and has left us questioning the nature of truth itself.

A common thread which links the three inventions I named is the disruption they have brought to what Australian academic and former journalist Professor Andrea Carson of La Trobe University describes as the 'information landscape'. In today's information landscape everyone's a producer, no-one's an editor and content is everywhere. And we've proven ourselves to be ineffective at managing it.

As a three-time ABC foreign correspondent, I began my career in the analogue days of reel-to-reel tape in a radio studio. Producing news was rigorous, and news travelled only at a pace the radio or TV schedule would allow. Traditional broadcast media, perhaps unwittingly, acted as gatekeepers—mediators—in the public discourse. Traumatic footage involving disasters and accidents, for example, was—and still is, by mainstream media—carefully cut together. This can differ according to country and culture, with higher tolerance in some places for graphic imagery. Having witnessed immense death and destruction firsthand as a foreign corresponded many times, I can truthfully say that the horrific things that continue to exist in full colour in my memory never ever made it to your screens—only my descriptions of those events did.

Today in discussions about free speech and censorship this fact has been lost. The humans involved in distributing information to the public have always made a series of decisions and value judgements about what you see, what's too violent, what's too offensive and so on. In general, these decisions are guided by editorial policies together with the collective experience and instincts of those producing the news.

As time progressed in my career as a journalist, so did technology as the industry transitioned from a bricks-and-mortar media landscape to one of unfettered information. The rise of the internet and novel forms of digital media flipped the structure of our media environment on its head. This new landscape had transformative potential. For example, Facebook and Twitter spread democratic ideas and mobilised mass demonstrations throughout the Arab world. When I was covering deadly civil unrest in Thailand in 2010, Twitter became a tool used by and between journalists—to work out what was happening where and whether it was safe to be there—as well as a way of sharing news. This transformation reached a tipping point in 2017 during my coverage of the Trump administration. Then it felt as if accusations of 'fake news' were coming as fast as the President could tweet. Suddenly we began questioning everything. Fragmentation of trust and truth became so great that basic facts became contested.

The COVID years both suffered from and compounded this post truth era, which was adeptly grasped by Donald Trump himself, who expertly seeded doubt that the 2020 election may be stolen due to alleged flaws in the COVID affected electoral process. The day of 6 January 2021 was a day when those storming the Capitol believed they were protecting democracy, not attacking it. Such was the success of Trump's disinformation campaign. More recently we've seen the dangerous and destructive results of disinformation in the form of false accusations about the Bondi Junction attacks and race riots in the UK triggered by online lies.

I've spent some time outlining what's a huge problem for societies across what is now a very connected world. The question is how to fix it. Several countries have either failed to legislate on mis- and disinformation or relented to public backlash by repealing new laws. In the US, for example, a newly appointed disinformation governance board was shut down after just a few months due to pushback.

At the heart of this minefield of international legislative failure and the culture war that closely follows is the question: what exactly do the words 'disinformation' and 'misinformation' mean? Anxiety over the integrity of free speech should not be dismissed. At its core lie philosophical questions about what modern society's relationship with information should be. To date, successive Australian governments of both stripes have allowed these questions to be answered by big tech. The Albanese government is no exception. Its foray into this territory has been fraught. The first draft of this bill was shelved, only to reappear over a year later, after tens of thousands of submissions were received.

This legislation, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, has two core objectives. One combats misinformation and the other disinformation. The two are entangled. Both spread falsehoods. Both can cause harm. But the distinction lies in intent. Disinformation is the deliberate sowing of falsehoods. Misinformation is inadvertent, yet it can accumulate to become capable of demonising communities and polarising nations. The US and the UK continue to grapple with the lasting impact caused by targeted disinformation campaigns. Society is polarised and trust eroded.

We still have time to prevent this from happening here. In 2015, evidence showed that Russia's notorious Internet Research Agency conducted influence operations in the Australian Twittersphere. A spike of troll and possibly bot posts targeted our then Prime Minister for his critique of the Russian President following the country's shooting down of MH17. Another spike occurred in April 2017. After Australia deployed fighter aircraft in Russia-backed Syrian airspace, a barrage of nonsensical content appeared on the hashtag #AusPol at four to five times the rate of typical organic traffic. This technique was designed to hook Australian Twitter users by presenting them with innocuous or humorous content and, over time, luring them to a more extreme viewpoint.

A majority of Australians polled before the Voice to Parliament referendum, says Timothy Graham of Queensland University of Technology, supported a 'yes' vote 12 months out from the vote. Public sentiment then fluctuated wildly, in correlation with the use of non-traditional pan-partisan and conspiratorial messaging techniques across X by the 'no' campaign. This is one clever example of how automated content recommendation via algorithms can be weaponised for political purposes and, indeed, how algorithms have begun to change the nature of modern politics.

Misinformation, though, is more challenging to nail down. Reliable data outlining the actual volume of misinformation on the internet is lacking, in part due to the way digital platforms prevent researchers from accessing platform data. The legislation expects digital platforms to intervene via various methods where content is both 'reasonably verifiable' and likely to cause 'serious harm'. These are subjective concepts. Indeed, as presented in this legislation, they are imperfect. These definitions remain matters of discussion between me and other members of the crossbench and the government.

It's a delicate balance to preserve freedoms when we know that algorithms favour outrageous content such as misinformation and disinformation and propagate it to drive user engagement and profit, with little or no regard for public safety and social cohesion. Where the boundary should be when it comes to public discourse and misinformation has become a political flashpoint. This debate is inflated when, in effect, this bill expects platforms to inform users about misleading content, not remove it, and up the transparency. Where content may cause serious harm to an individual or our community, do something about it and then tell ACMA how you'll do it.

To be clear, platforms already action misleading content, but under their own rules—Elon Musk's rules or Mark Zuckerberg's rules. Whose do you prefer—theirs or ours? Rules formed by our parliament or big tech? Currently, all the power lies with the platforms, and doing nothing, in my view, is no longer an option. But what we do must hold carefully calibrated definitions and demonstrate a clear capacity to be effective in encountering this societal threat.

For the moment, I'm not entirely satisfied that either the definitions or the transparency measures in this bill are adequate, and discussions with the government on these matters are ongoing. It's clear, though, that competition alone has not aligned digital platforms with the best interests of society. The misaligned commercial incentive structures which guide the logic of big tech's algorithms are why we're glued to our screens, why are feeds make us compare our lives with our friends, why political content polarises and outrages us, why Cambridge Analytica was able to exploit our divisions, and why nation states can cynically weaponise our open but fractured information landscapes. Surely, there is a better approach.

This government talks a big game about standing up to big tech, but the truth is that time after time it's the path of least resistance. Labor's strategy on online safety revolves around the industry co-regulation model—self-regulation, in other words—and it's a core element of this bill. Indeed, the core thesis of the co-regulatory model was coalition policy. This is backed by a veiled threat of resolve to impose more interventionist regulation if big tech companies don't pick up the game on their own. This is in the face of new laws in the EU and UK which have far surpassed our own. Their approach—a systems approach to online safety—is proving to be the far more effective strategy. But not for Australia: 'Just switch your devices off,' we're told. This is not a solution.

I recognise the obvious benefits which digital platforms can provide, but the risk of harm in Australia's existing regulatory environment is too high. It goes far beyond the narrow scope of just mis- and disinformation, and we can't continue to let the platforms decide how to fix it, which is why I will be introducing substantive, detailed amendments to this legislation. Today researchers in Europe and America have data access rights where it's in the public interest for them to investigate how algorithms are operating on a digital platform in a specific region. My amendments will allow Australian researchers to gain the same level of insight into the data of how algorithms are functioning in our country too. I fear that ACMA, at present, is not properly resourced with the technical expertise needed to critically analyse the data provided to the government under the transparency measures in the bill in its current form. Absent data access rights for Australian researchers, the capacity of this bill to meaningfully and urgently combat the threat mis- and disinformation poses to our democracy is, in my judgement, questionable.

The rapid and uncontrolled spread of mis- and disinformation is a risk to social cohesion, public health and safety, and political stability, yet this bill has arguably been the subject of disinformation in the form of a knee-jerk reaction about censorship, despite nothing in the bill requiring content to be removed and no penalties for individual users. I absolutely do understand public concern about free speech—as a former journalist I see it as a fundamental tenet of democracy—but at its core the aspiration here is to make platforms more responsible—just a bit more, not even a lot more. What those opposing this legislation need to answer is this: do you believe mis- and disinformation are threats to democracy and, if so, do we plan to do something about it? If not, we'll just have leave the rule-making to Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where do we start? As they say, opinions are like noses; everybody's got one. Your opinion and your facts are personal, but they're yours, and what we see with the misinformation bill—the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024—is someone's opinion and someone's facts can be determined to be the facts for everybody. That's an incredibly dangerous thing. Quite frankly, I find it peculiar that the government would bring this forward so close to an election. It's so toxic out there. It really has stirred people up. We all know that the traffic we get into our office via emails and on our Facebook sites, and people really don't like this piece of legislation.

So I'd leave good enough alone and just walk away from it. I hate to give tactics to the Australian Labor Party, but if I were in their tactics group, I'd say, 'Look, we don't need this one. Cut this off. While you're at it, take intermittent power out, too, because that is awfully unpopular.'

With this misinformation bill, at the start, you hear stuff where there's some sense of credibility, where you say, 'Well, if you're stirring up young girls on body image and it's bringing about real afflictions'—and that does happen—'then I suppose it's a good thing,' but then, when you look at the bill, you see that it doesn't deal with that issue. So you say, 'What does it deal with?' and it's, 'Well, your position on climate change; your position on intermittent power; your position on nuclear'—and these are part of the political debate.

We have got to give some credibility to the common sense that is held by the vast majority of people, to determine what they believe in and what they don't and what they take on board. Are you going to have misinformation legislation for people at public functions or for people going to the local pub on a Friday night? Are you going to say, 'I heard what you said, but I'm now going to have you arrested because I believe that you are espousing misinformation'? No. You give credit to the people around you. You say, 'Look, I heard what he said, or what she said. It's a load of rubbish, and I'm just parking it, but I don't want to create a commotion so I'll just let the clown carry on with what they're saying and completely ignore it.' But what we're doing here is saying: 'You're not capable of discerning what is the truth. You're incapable of checking the veracity of an item, of crosschecking it, of corroborating it, of playing it over in your mind in those sweet hours before you fall asleep as to whether you believe that is the truth or not.'

There are a lot of things in the presidential election that is happening right as we speak—and I know that, right now, this speech will be probably the most unwatched thing in Australia, because everybody is glued to that. Mind you, I do know that I have my virtues and I might be pulling a bit of an audience away from the presidential election! But I doubt it. There are a lot of things that have been said in that presidential election which even I hear, from thousands and thousands of kilometres away, and say, 'That's not right.' But do I feel offended by it? Does it rock my core? Am I inclined to throw things at the television set? No. God has given me the grace—and blessed I am by it—that I can listen to something and say, 'That's not right.' And that's all it needs. That's where you need to stop.

What we're doing here is: we are codifying one person's or one side's opinion as having supremacy to other people's opinions. You could say, 'Well, you're couching your opinion as fact.' Well, maybe that's how you see it and that's another opinion of yours, as to how that argument is framed. But it is not your right to determine, in a liberal democracy, what can be heard and what cannot be heard.

Of course, you cannot scream, 'Fire!' in a cinema; we all know that. But we've already got that covered in Australia. What we're doing here is further outreach—this further sense of censorship. That is how we are seeing it in the replies that are coming to so many of our offices and, no doubt, to the offices of government members of parliament. You are creating censorship.

I used to be cynical; I used to call them conspiracy theorists, but now I'm starting to get a sense that maybe there was something to George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Maybe they were kind of smart. Maybe we see, in the Ministry of Truth, how this happens. These people were clever enough to pick the tenor of where things go. And this, to be precise, is what they were talking about.

Leave this to the individual. Leave that right to be wrong, that right to be misinformed, to the individual, because it balances up with that even greater right: to state your mind, without fear or favour. We all know how, in a malevolent way, with a sense of malfeasance, one could grasp this piece of legislation and say, 'I know the truth, and the only truth that I'm going to let you hear—

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

At that point I'm announcing that the debate has been interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got more to say later on.

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

The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to speak when the debate is resumed.