Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.' So said George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. That was written in 1949, in post World War II Britain, about a dystopian future in 1984. This might be a surprise: I was around in 1984, and it didn't happen then.

Who, in this place and in this country, would have thought that part of that dystopian work of fiction—the 'Ministry of Truth'—would be implemented by the Albanese Labor government? The idea, even the concept, that a public servant in a department would determine what a fact is and whether someone can have an opinion or a reasonable belief is a yawning chasm. It is incredibly dangerous to this country. I, for one, cannot believe this is being put forward; I really can't.

This nation—in fact, Western democracies, for centuries—has been built on freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It also has centuries of law to protect individuals, to ensure they can't be vilified. The better approach would be to find a way for those centuries of law, those centuries of precedent, those centuries of other cases to be utilised in what is now a normal platform, a digital platform. I think that would be completely understandable.

But one must ask the question as to why the urgency for this bill now? In what is clearly the last days of the Albanese government, as they come towards the end of this term, why the urgency to put this bill through? Well, if you look at some of the components, things that could be considered to 'cause serious harm', the material that might be captured in those elements, include, would you believe, misinformation in elections.

If the Labor Party were so concerned about misinformation in elections, perhaps they might have taken action against their own party in Queensland. I want to give some examples as to where this applies. In the last Queensland election we saw what I found to be an absolutely disgraceful campaign around abortion. This is something so sensitive, so personal, and yet we saw the Labor member for Bundaberg utilise campaign slogans which were, firstly, completely untrue; secondly, false; and, thirdly, absolutely disturbing for many of the female voters. The ALP would use lines like, 'Don't let the LNP jail women for having an abortion.' There is no need to implement legislation like this to stop that behaviour. The Labor Party could have done it.

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

It's in the US now!

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection, but this is not the United States. This is Australia. It was completely unnecessary; it shouldn't have been done and you don't need legislation like this to prevent it.

But it's not just around what can be utilised in election time. Let's look at things like banks. With this legislation in place, could we have got the banking royal commission, which found so many offences, so many things that needed to be addressed? If the individuals that fought for the banking royal commission had been silenced, as they could be under this legislation, we would never have gotten to the point where those things were addressed, where banks were found to have done absolutely unlawful activities before they got fixed. I come back to the point I made earlier: the oppressed will never know that they've been oppressed if they have nothing to compare it to. Will this end up in the equivalent of digital book-burning, because someone who is not an academic puts forward a view that the government of the day decides is unacceptable and they're removed from digital platforms?

I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.

We also have the issue around referendums. We've just recently been through a referendum. There are those out there who claim that the referendum was defeated because of misinformation. I clearly remember the member for Melbourne having a shot at me on Q+A about some of the advertising that I utilised in the referendum, claiming it was misinformation. It wasn't. It was based on actual legislation that was implemented in the Western Australian state government and applied. That was later withdrawn because it was a mistake, but it was factual. The idea that any government would be able to determine what your reasonable belief is, and prevent you from having it, is an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.

And then we find in the legislation that there's the ability for the minister to exempt digital platforms. Well, here's a couple of proposals. For example, would this Labor government exempt a digital platform for the CFMEU, who we know have been found and convicted for criminal offences? This legislation would allow the government of the day to exempt a CFMEU digital platform. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation.

I will use one example of the treatment of academics and scientists which is very well-known—the views of Peter Ridd, for which he was removed from his place at university in Queensland. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but I agree with his absolute right to have them. If I recall one of his elements correctly, Mr Ridd made the point that an entire flood season for a year in Queensland is the equivalent of one tide into the Great Barrier Reef, one wash-through, and that sounds a pretty commonsense approach to me. How would ACMA, which would have information-gathering powers, go about perhaps getting a warrant? At what level will that apply? Looking at advice and comments from experts in the field, I will go to the New South Wales solicitor-general, Michael Sexton, who said about this legislation, 'It targets contestable political opinions on social media and 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.'

I will come back to the referendum. The Australian people informed themselves and made a decision and that decision should be respected because it was the majority belief of the people who were able to vote in this country and that is what our democratic system is about. Of course we should protect the minorities but all governments of any stripe should govern for the majority of the people and their views, not tell them what their views are, not prevent them from having a reasonable belief, not prevent them from putting forward that view in whatever platform they wish. As I continue to make the point, I am totally accepting that online platforms are part of your actual life but you should be identified, you should have verified accounts, and, whether or not the big Meta operators like that, to be honest, I really don't care.

This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a woeful piece of legislation. It is a woeful piece of legislation from a grossly incompetent government, incompetent on so many fronts that the list is getting so long it would be hard to read out in the time that I have allocated for this speech, which is 15 minutes. We are here debating and discussing this when we should be dealing with cost-of-living crisis, when we should be dealing with an immigration crisis, when we should be dealing with an infrastructure crisis which has seen roads deteriorate across this nation, when we should be dealing with a health crisis where we're not seeing the doctors that we need being put in place and when we should be dealing with issues that go to the heart of what the Australian people are feeling in their day-to-day lives—the fact that their standard of living has just declined at rates that we haven't seen in decades. The fact that we're not dealing with those issues and instead are dealing with an issue where the government wants to try and censor the people is completely and utterly beyond the pale.

The coalition will oppose this bill because the government keeps getting it wrong. The government tried to bring in a first bill and had to withdraw it because it was such a bad piece of legislation. They've now brought in this second bill, and, once again, if they were going to do the right thing by the Australian people, they would pull this bill as well, because there are so many fundamental flaws in it that it's not funny.

Let's start with the process. They put out an exposure draft of this bill. Guess how many days they gave people to comment? Less than a week. It beggars belief that for such an important piece of legislation—it goes to the heart of our democracy and the heart of our society, which is the ability of people to exercise free speech—people were given a week to be able to file in their thoughts, their comments and their feedback. It was a bad process for such an important bill.

Then there was bad decision-making. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings. If that sounds draconian to you, it sounds draconian because it is. What are the guidelines for the minister? What are the guardrails for the minister? What's to stop the minister abusing these powers? These are the sorts of powers that you'd think that this government would be fighting against, especially in today's geopolitical climate, where we're seeing the rise of totalitarian regimes. Yet here they are trying to put in place powers which would be more at home in those types of regimes than they would be here.

The minister may exempt digital platforms. As the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, said, if the CFMEU had a digital platform, the minister could exempt that. What could anyone do about that? That's a very good question. Who decides which digital platforms we can have in this country and which ones we can't? The minister. I think it's a requirement of every Labor Party MP in this country to be backed by a union of some sort. So do you think the minister, if they're backed by a particular union, is going to say, 'No, sorry, your digital platform needs to be brought down because of misinformation'? No. The minister can pick and choose, and that is deeply concerning.

There's the unequal treatment of content. Academics, scientists, artists and parody or satire are exempt, except the views of everyday Australians aren't. There are so many holes in this that it is not even worth bearing consideration, because all it will lead to is all of us turning into everyday comics. Everyone will start using satire or parody to get their point across. Half the time when they're being serious on that side, we think they're practising parody or satire, but in this instance they're actually legislating for it. You'll be able to spread misinformation or disinformation through bad parody, bad jokes and bad satire, and who will decide whether it is or isn't? Of course, it'll be the minister. How does that work for everyday Australians?

It's almost incomprehensible how this has been drafted, because it is completely and utterly unworkable, and the only thing it will be used for is to shut down people trying to express a firmly held view. It could be a firmly held view when it comes to a political belief, a religious belief or a civil belief. Those views can be shut down. This is not the sort of country that everyday Australians want to live in. They want to be able to express their views. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of Australians now who worry that they can't freely express themselves. With this, that will get even more worrying and more concerning for them. I say to the government: please come to the dispatch box and explain how, when it comes to artists, parody or satire, that is going to work when it comes to this bill? It is clear and obvious that it won't.

There's also the unequal treatment of content, so-called professional news content. If something appears in professional news content, effectively mainstream media, it cannot be misinformation. But, if the same view or a contrary view were put outside of professional news content, it could be misinformation. How does this work? You could have exactly the same view as an everyday Australian and put that view, and that could be misinformation. Yet, if a mainstream media outlet expresses exactly the same view, that's fine. How is this workable? How is this manageable? Once again, who makes the decision as to whether or not it is misinformation or disinformation? That is the real question that needs to be answered.

Another concern that we have is that the bill gives ACMA so-called information-gathering powers. The bill gives ACMA powers to require digital platforms to provide it with information relevant to misinformation and disinformation. The bill extends ACMA's information-gathering powers to individuals who work for or are otherwise associated with digital platforms. Employees, contractors and fact checkers are subject to these powers. ACMA can use these powers if it thinks the person may have information or a document relevant to misinformation. The person must hand over documents to ACMA as requested or face fines of more than $9,000.

I assume that the minister has spoken to ACMA about whether they want these powers or not and whether, as an entity, this is the type of enforcing that ACMA should be doing. Does it have the relevant skills to investigate? Does it have the relevant skills to gather information? Does it have the relevant powers to be able to do this and then to fine? It is not something that ACMA was set up to do at all, and yet here we are giving this organisation these types of powers. Where are the guardrails? Who oversees whether ACMA are using these powers correctly or not? Who's directing ACMA? If I asked anyone in this building, I don't think anyone outside of about a handful would know who the managing director of ACMA is or who sits on their board, if they have a board or who works in that organisation. This is all of a sudden giving quite extraordinary powers to an organisation that no-one knows anything about. It is quite extraordinary.

As a result, people are raising serious concerns about this piece of legislation. The New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton has said:

It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

…   …   …

References to Orwell's 1984 have become something of a cliche over the years but there is a sinister suggestion of its thesis in proposed legislation that is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues …

You cannot get more damning.

The Victorian Bar association 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 …

That is damning. The Victorian barrister and Voltaire Society president Peter A Clark was quoted in the Australianas saying the changes to the bill were the equivalent of putting 'lipstick on a pig'. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

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

It goes on and on.

I think the most damning thing is what the feedback has been from people on the street. I can tell you that, in my electorate of Wannon, the feedback that I have had has all been one way. I thank every single constituent who has emailed me, written me or called my office about this bill. While they have deep concerns about the government's complete inadequacy in dealing with cost of living, infrastructure and making sure we have enough doctors, they also have deep, deep concerns about the government stepping in to control what they think and, in particular, their political expressions and the political views that they would like to express. It's why we in the coalition oppose this bill. It is why, if we are elected at the next election, we will make sure that we rip it up, because this is bad legislation being put through this parliament by a bad government.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my voice to the hundreds of thousands of Australians—progressive, conservative, left and right—who have all indicated their strenuous opposition to this Albanese Labor government's attempt to curtail our freedom of speech and expression. This bill that we are debating, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, is the second attempt by the Labor government to regulate freedom of speech in Australia—individual citizens' online speech. They have done it a different way, but it is no less threatening to our ability to think, express and judge than the previous bill, which was opposed by over 20,000 submissions and groups across Australia.

I have had form in this. I have opposed these sorts of bills since I came to this parliament as a young person. People will remember the Rudd government's internet filter, which every technical expert said could not work, would not work and would not filter the internet, and yet the Rudd government pursued this vainglorious and stupid attempt to filter the internet. We had to fight that then and we had to defeat it. As a parliament now, whether you're progressive, whether you're conservative or whether you're from the Left or Right, we need to rise up and oppose this bill, and join the chorus of Australians who have paid attention to this and who understand that the government's function is not to regulate in a free society the content of peoples' minds. It isn't their role to arbitrate over the free thought, free expression and free speech of people. You're getting that from every quarter of Australian politics and Australian society in opposition to this bill. It's universal. There is no support for this bill, yet the government cannot take the cue to understand that combating misinformation and disinformation pertains to foreign powers trying to interfere in Australia and to malign actors from overseas interfering in Australia. That's what a properly constructed legislative regime should look like—not regulating in a free country our individual citizens, our private groups and our freedom of thought, worship and speech.

This misinformation bill that the government is desperate to get through reveals their agenda. Why is the government so desperate to pass a misinformation bill on our own citizenry? When you look at the notable failures recently—and I will certainly call out both sides when they've failed on this—I had great scepticism about the appointment of an esafety commissioner, and I was convinced about it because it would pertain to the protection of children. However, what we saw from the eSafety Commissioner is another example of what will happen under this bill, when the eSafety Commissioner decided to take legal action against an international platform, X, with Australian taxpayers' money to challenge a jurisdiction which she has no control over and which Australia has no control over.

The humiliating backdown of the eSafety Commissioner is another example of what will happen if the communications media authority, ACMA, is given power over Australians' decision-making. There will be litigation. They will take action against our citizens, and they will take action against platforms because they haven't taken action against our citizens. Why do we need this bill? It's a fundamental question. Why do we actually need it?

An honourable member: Elections!

Yes—my colleague says, 'Elections.' This bill does cover elections and political thought, clearly in violation even of the United Nations. I'm not a big fan of the United Nations in general, but the United Nations rapporteur has belled it correctly when he calls out that this kind of misinformation bill and this kind of misinformation violate international principles of people's ability to speak freely and to think freely. Even the United Nations has said this would be a violation of the right to free speech. So, when we ask why is this bill happening, the answer seems to be that this is a bill from a government that is obsessed with silencing opposition or having the ability to intimidate commentary that disagrees with its agenda, which is what any citizen in a free society should be inherently sceptical of.

When you look at modern examples of regimes like China which have total control over the internet and total control over thought and expression, or regimes like Iran, where they turn off the internet when there is a protest or riots—they simply turn off the platforms and turn off access to the platforms—it is terrifying. It is the Orwellian example that was written about many years ago coming to life now in the digital age when government without restraint, government without control and government that isn't controlled by the people and the citizenry in an affected society can do terrifying things to its own citizens. Imagine living in Russia, Iran or China and trying to express a different political view online, trying to access digital content or trying to test the government's provided information?

The key failing of this bill is that it assumes, incorrectly, that the government are the people who can decide what is misinformation and disinformation. I would suggest that government records throughout history suggest that the government is as guilty of disinformation and misinformation as any other body, privately constructed, or individuals. It is absolutely stunning to think that the government could think that the ACMA, an unelected body, would have arbitrary power to decide what it regards as misinformation. Having had some exposure to ACMA through government and through the executive of the federal government, I will go a little bit further than some of my colleagues and say the ACMA is completely incapable of fulfilling this function. They have neither the people you would trust, if you met them, to make a determination about misinformation or disinformation nor the technical capacity in terms of the digital age, when people from the private sector are on X or Facebook or other major platforms.

It's no reflection on ACMA. They are simply good people doing their own work inside the communications portfolio of the Australian government, but they are simply unable to fulfil the function that this legislation would give them power to arbitrate. It is our role as a parliament to say: 'Take a step back. They should not have that power in the first place.' We don't want government bureaucrats to have the power to decide what is misinformation in our private interactions online. It is, of course, assuming that people are stupid. It's an assumption which the Democrats have made in the United States, to their discredit in recent times, and the US public have seen through that. The Labor government here is assuming that people are uneducated and that people can't make their own judgements about information they receive online.

I think that is a false assumption and a dangerous assumption for a government. Think through the consequences of saying, 'The government knows better than you what you should be thinking and what you should be saying online and what is dangerous to you.' It is a false assumption, and I think it's something that everybody—Left, Right, progressive or conservative—can accept is dangerous. That's why the Senate committees have recommended several times that this bill not be passed. That's every committee that's looked at it. There's another one coming. I guarantee you, without pre-empting that committee, they'll also agree, whether they are Left, Right, progressive or conservative, that there is danger in this bill.

Yet there is one group of people in Australia not listening, and that is the Albanese Labor government. It is not listening to anybody in our society about this bill. It's not listening at all. What is the moral justification for a misinformation and disinformation bill about our own citizenry in our country, Australia? I believe most people are able to make their own judgements about information. They have so far done so very well. They're able to think through these things.

We might need laws to combat foreign powers using money to deceptively promote misinformation, and, certainly, that can happen in elections. We have foreign interference laws and foreign donation bans. We have passed many good laws to prevent malign actors from interfering in our polity or our information flow, yet here the government is saying government bureaucrats will now be the supreme authority in relation to the correctness of information.

We don't need these laws, and we don't need this bill. But the government is not listening to anybody, whether they are Left, Right, progressive or conservative. It's not listening to one submission. It's not listening to the United Nations for once. We must listen to the United Nations on everything else, but not on this, according to the Labor government. We need to take the time to have a look again, and I would encourage Australians everywhere to wake up in relation to this bill. Australians have a very laid-back culture. We take our freedom for granted; we take our free society for granted; we take our freedom of thought, speech and worship for granted. We assume that we have freedom.

Every bill like this that passes the parliament curtails individual thought and expression. That's why all my colleagues are here today opposing it. That's why the Liberals and the Nationals have opposed this bill so vehemently because a bill that's supposed to be about misinformation from foreign actors and bad people interfering within Australia has become about Australians' freedom of expression. It's somehow become about what we say and think to each other and that somehow the ACMA is going to know better what we should be saying and thinking to each other. I think we all know where this goes, so we will certainly oppose this bill.

Again, I highlight the case of the eSafety Commissioner from personal experience. As a former multicultural affairs minister, it must have been 15 minutes after the tragic stabbing of Mar Mari Emmanuel in south-western Sydney occurred—before I'd seen it on the news—that I had received the video of the incident from contacts within the Assyrian community and faith communities. It was circulating rapidly. In this day and age, that's completely normal. People circulate content. They share, in good faith, information with each other to say, 'Look what's happened down here.' Yes, it's terrifying. Yes, it's disturbing content. Yes, it's concerning. But we are all adults, and we are all familiar with this process in 2024. There are upsides to it; there are downsides to it.

But the government is naive to think that somehow a bill or a regulator can interrupt those interactions and stop them. We shouldn't attempt to set bureaucrats up over those processes because they will fail, like they do even in tyrannical regimes like Iran and China. Information gets through; information is circulated. Information will continue to circulate. But, in a free, democratic Western society, we should not attempt to have government bureaucrats sitting between those processes.

When the eSafety Commissioner issued the orders to stop that content, it was well after the fact. The horse hadn't bolted; the stable had bolted. The entire Melbourne Cup field was galloping all over the country. Then the eSafety Commissioner said, 'Oh, we need to stop this content,' after millions of people had seen it. Compliance with Australian orders is one thing, but taking legal action internationally is, again, an example of a government appointed bureaucrat, which has a track record of taking legal action internationally on jurisdictional questions against this particular company, extending their mandate without authority and without the consent of the people to do so. That isn't an isolated example or incident. It is an example of what will happen with the ACMA. It's an example of what will happen if we pass these laws.

Government overreach is the biggest danger in these sorts of things, and the construction of this bill, the provisions that this bill has put in place to hold the power to regulate what they do and how they behave over digital platforms, will mean they have the power over us. It is not power that we want to give the government. It's not power that we want to give those free-speech platforms. It's not power that we want ACMA, in particular, to hold.

The government, of course, refuses to listen. The Labor government is pushing ahead with misinformation and disinformation, saying that the Australian people are generating the misinformation and disinformation. The fact that elections, referendums—we've just had one—public health preventive health measures and imminent harm to the economy or financial markets are just some of the topics that will be covered by this bill is chilling. It ought to be chilling to people in Australia today. We've enjoyed the ability to speak freely, to think freely and to worship freely. Each one of these bills that gets passed will see more and more of these litigated cases from government bureaucrats, which will curtail our freedom of speech. So today I rise with my colleagues to oppose it.

I think the best thing that can happen now is the government scratches this bill for a second time—listens to every progressive organisation in the country and every conservative organisation in the country, Left and Right, which are aligned in 20,000 submissions against what the government is doing in their approach. Rewrite the bill to what it's supposed to be: curtail malign influence that is not genuine from overseas and onshore people that are doing it deliberately to deceive or misinform. It is not appropriate to set up a government regulator or bureaucrat over the Australian people and over their good judgment and their ability to freely access information. That's why you have unions, former union leaders, civil liberties councils, lawyers, law bodies, the United Nations, health officers and people from a wide variety of places not just sounding the alarm bell but actively opposing the Albanese government's approach on this bill.

I say to every Australian that you only have one recourse in the next six months. The government intends to pass this bill. The Liberal and National parties will oppose it vehemently through the House and the Senate. But Labor with their allies, the Greens, have the capacity to pass this law. If passed into law, every single Australian that is concerned about this bill and the government's approach to regulating their freedom of speech needs to go to the next federal election to fight the Labor Party and to defeat them at government. We have committed to repealing this legislation. We've committed to fixing it if the government passes it. There are millions of Australians already concerned. There will be millions more when this bill comes into operation, I can assure you, and when the ACMA starts determining things about freedom of speech. To every one of those Australians, I say to you that the power is with you through this parliament at the next election. Do not forget that this Labor government's main priority is to regulate your free speech and your freedom of thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

…   …   …

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

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

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

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

… … …

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

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

The terms 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' have become overused in public discourse and are employed by both left and right as a way to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate. In an era where our limited attention spans hinder reasoned discussion, these terms have become shortcuts to shutting down conversation.

… … …

Rather than seeking to impose the truth upon the public through legislation, we must focus on equipping our communities with the tools to critically assess and judge information for themselves.

The Australian Christian Lobby said:

There is no excuse for what is proposed in this bill.

… … …

Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my voice and objection to the bill before the House, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. We've heard from numerous speakers about this bill and the nature of it. I must say that I think that, in my eight years of coming to this place and serving the people of Wide Bay, this is one of the most dangerous bills and most grievous attacks on what we hold close in our nation and what makes us great as a nation—the element of free speech.

This version of the bill gives the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, powers to require digital platforms to take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. Under the bill, ACMA does not make rulings on whether a particular piece of content is misinformation or disinformation. Rather, it is given powers to determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. If ACMA determines that a platform is not taking adequate steps, it can issue fines of up to five per cent of the company's global turnover.

The ubiquitous nature of the internet places it in all of our lives, and it's ever increasing. We didn't rely on it for much at all 20 years ago. It was only a minor part of our lives. But it has become an important part of our lives on many levels. In terms of safety, governments rely on it to convey a message. In terms of communication, when my predecessor started in this place in 1990, the way you got your message across was in the letters to the editor in the newspaper. That was the forum, and it took much time. But now we've evolved. The discussion happens in real time and online, and that is a good thing. People have the opportunity to discuss, and sometimes they do get it wrong in those discussions. Sometimes they will unintentionally put something forward that may not be right, but they should not be committing an offence, particularly where there is no intent. But this bill certainly puts those in charge of platforms in a position where they will receive a penalty if they allow that to happen. That will have the consequence of dumbing down free speech. This, for me, is a digital version of the burning of the books. It worries me tremendously.

Of course, you need some regulation within this environment; it has its great dangers. Recently this Albanese government was dragged kicking and screaming to age verification for young people, so we'll have safeguards for young people accessing pornography and gambling sites. That's good. They're the sorts of regulations and rules that we need. They actually help society. But this bill is clearly an attack on free speech and an attack on everyday citizens who want to engage in that. Instead of encouraging people to speak, to use their words to make their point, we have a government that is shutting them down. This is the sort of stuff you see in Russia and in China. This is not Australia. This is absolutely frightening.

My constituents have inundated me with their concerns about this bill, and I share them. I share the concerns of the 20,000 people that gave feedback to the initial draft that went out, which this bill is a rehash of. I share those concerns because those concerns are real. This is poor legislation.

The misinformation definition is one that is broad and open to interpretation. As I said before, it captures opinions that can be made in good faith. How is that happening in a democracy like Australia? Something that's said in good faith is now an offence, and someone's going to be fined for not shutting it down.

On the serious harm element of this bill, the broad definition of 'serious harm', we've got very recent and stark examples where this applies. Serious harm can occur in the environment of an election or a referendum. Now, that's a good one. We all lived through the recent referendum on the Voice, and the use of the term 'misinformation' there was absolutely extraordinary. We had a government who were providing no information. Typically, you're discouraged from making a negative inference on something, but there are times when it's valid to make a negative inference—when a government has information they're not sharing with you and when they're not answering the questions. We saw this with the Voice, with the construction of what they were proposing. It was open to the opponents of that to say: 'This is what it is. They're not saying it. This is what it is.' Those negative inferences would now be seen as misinformation. They were absolutely valid and an important part of the discussion and debate. It beggars belief.

On public health, the one time I crossed the floor in this chamber was to support Craig Kelly in a motion that was calling on this place to discuss what was happening in terms of government regulation. That was my side, but both sides were guilty of overreach when it came to that. That motion—that I crossed the floor on, to bring on a debate about those things—was lost. In my mind, that showed that this place and government could get things wrong, because we weren't discussing things. Discussions were being shut down and valid points were being censored. We saw that through COVID. Now we're legislating to make misinformation and disinformation a part of our lives. If that wasn't a big enough example for all of us to say, 'Let the sun shine in, let the views and opinions of everyone come forward, let's look at them,' then we're in uncharted territory. No. Let's shut down the discussion. Let's not let people speak. That's not why I stand in this place, serving the people. I stand in this place to encourage discussion. And if that discussion is wrong, then so be it. That's the whole nature of debating things.

This bill is so open to potential political weaponisation, it is absolutely disgraceful. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations! Orwell's has had a good run through this, but I'll say that again: the minister can personally order misinformation investigations. What is happening to Australia under this Albanese government?

They can exempt certain digital platforms. So, the minister can say, 'Oh, no; I think that one is exempt.' Why? Well, you don't have to be Einstein. There will be political bias associated with the determinations on this.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The CFMEU.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague mentions the union movement, the CFMEU, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. This bill also treats Australians differently. Academics and scientists and artists are treated differently. Now, I'm not going to criticise academics or scientists, but let's not kid ourselves and deny that history shows that sometimes the best research and the best science money can buy has backed up things that we now know to be completely wrong. If you're an academic, you can't be challenged under this legislation. I find that a bit confronting as well. That the average Australian citizen is treated like they're dumb, effectively, but if you've got a few letters in front of your name you're exempt from this legislation.

I didn't finish high school. I stand here in the parliament representing my people because they have had a good look at me and they've said to themselves: 'We like this bloke. We think he's trustworthy and we'll put him in there to represent us.' I didn't finish high school. I'm treated exactly the same in this chamber, because that's what democracy and debate is about. We're all equals. There are plenty of people in here who are far more educated than what I am, but they're equal to me in this place. That's what we should be striving for in society. But, instead, this draws a line and says: 'You're an academic. You're qualified, therefore you can speak freely. But because your friend hasn't been educated in the same way, I'm sorry, we're going treat them very differently.' This is the stuff of nightmares.

ACMA also has information-gathering powers—once again, very frightening stuff. I'm not alone, obviously. I said before that many of my constituents—there were 20,000 responses to the discussion paper when it went out, so I'm not alone. And I'll read what the New South Wales Solicitor-General, Michael Sexton, had to say. He said:

It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

That's a more articulate and concise version of what I said before. This government is treating people as if they are dumb and they can't be trusted with their own words.

An opposition member interjecting—

Or beliefs—exactly. To go to beliefs, the Australian Christian Lobby 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. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.

If this bill passes the parliament, it will be a very, very sad day for Australia and it will signal a very dangerous future where government tells you what you can and can't say and government penalises people and organisations for not policing the truth in the way that it would like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This one-term Albanese Labor government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is a betrayal of democracy. The Labor government is debilitating our right to feel safe in Australia. The Labor government is debilitating our primary industries, our farmers and our fishers. It is debilitating our energy security. Those opposite cannot get inflation under control and are presiding over one of the biggest housing crises in history. Now, believe it or not, they are taking away our hardworking taxpayers' freedom of speech. What is the government's game? What are they up to?

Before I came to this place, I was the Mayor of the Whitsunday Regional Council. It was one of my very pleasing duties to perform citizenship ceremonies. Citizens came from all over the world to make the Whitsundays their home, and they came because they wanted to enjoy our rights and civil liberties. They wanted to enjoy freedom because, in their countries, a lot of them didn't have freedoms. They didn't have the choices that we do in Australia, so they came to Australia. The core of this was the freedom of speech, but now, unfortunately, it looks like the Albanese Labor government want to take away that freedom of speech. I never, ever thought that I would be standing up in this place defending the right to freedom of speech in this great country of ours. We on this side of the House find this to be an appalling attempt at legislation, and we will fight it tooth and nail—because it's deadset wrong.

Australians need to know what's in this bill. What will it do? It will impose huge fines on digital platforms if the government feel that the content of those platforms doesn't suit them. This means digital platforms will want to avoid those huge fines, so they will censor large amounts of free speech. That's right: they will censor free speech. I want the people in my electorate, the people of Dawson, to decide what content they want, what they want to read and what they want to watch. Let them make the choice. Let them do their research. Let them look at the facts. I don't want my people to have sanitised information. They can find out their own information and they can decide.

If this bill goes ahead, the Minister for Communications, personally, will be able to order misinformation investigations on her terms, at her choosing. This can be exploited. This can be used for political gain. These are extraordinary powers, and they are just not right. They have no place in Australia. This bill poses a significant threat to our democracy by giving excessive power to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to dictate what can and cannot be posted on digital platforms. The vague definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', coupled with severe penalties for noncompliance, create the potential for overcensorship. There have been thousands of submissions made to the Senate inquiry, but barely a fraction of these have been uploaded for public view, and we need to ask why. Let's look at some examples.

If you're an academic, something you say can't be misinformation, but if you're an everyday Australian who disagrees with an academic, what you say can be misinformation. I tell you what: in my part of the world I've got a lot of tradies and a lot of labourers, and I can guarantee you they're a lot more sensible than most of the academics in Canberra. They're the ones that go to work each day and make things happen. They dig the holes. They fix the electronics. They're the people that actually make it happen, not the people that sit around the office and dream about what might happen. We need to listen to the ordinary Australians, not the people from the Canberra bubble.

If a comedian says something, it cannot be misinformation, but an average Aussie who disagrees with a comedian can have their own opinion censored. Wow! You can't make this up. It is absolutely bizarre! Podcasters will need to check whether something they might be seeing has misinformation before they put it to air. The honestly held opinions of ordinary Australians can be treated as misinformation. This is a fundamental issue for our democracy. Voltaire once stated, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' That is freedom of speech. Interestingly enough, there's a bit of conjecture about that. Some people say it came from Beatrice Hall, but, again, isn't it good that things can be challenged, that things can be discussed and talked about.

Some of the most interesting conversations you will ever have in your life are with people who don't agree with you. You can take their point of view on board, see what they have to say and, potentially, find a hybrid solution from the two points of view. Believe it or not, I actually listen to some of those on the opposite side of the House—maybe not Minister Bowen, but that's for very good reason, but I do generally listen to some of the information that comes from the other side and take the points of view on board. I think: 'Okay, maybe we can work with that. We can amend something. We can do something with that.' It's very, very important to listen, and that's what I do in my electorate. I listen to the people, but I also let—and expect—them have the freedom of speech to be able to look me in the eye and say: 'This is what we think. This is what we want you to do. Member for Dawson, you stuffed this up. We want you to do this.' I take that on board; I generally do.

The Labor government is ramming this legislation through, giving people barely a week to respond, so it can censor everyday Australians. This is so wrong. I believe in the right to engage in open and honest discourse online, and I fear this bill will stop our younger generation feeling confident to express their voices. It is not just me who thinks this. Scott Crawford of my electorate says, 'We don't need this. We need a new government'. Tick. Wendy Carroll says, 'The Prime Minister started this rubbish with the no vote. He didn't like people opposing what he was saying. the Prime Minister does not like the truth'. You're exactly right, Wendy. Through that divisive referendum that cost the taxpayers over $450 million, in my electorate over 80 per cent of the people voted no and then the people who voted no got accused of misinformation, saying the wrong thing. The fact of the matter is the people haven't got it wrong; people should be able to get all the information and make their own decisions, so, Wendy Carroll, you're exactly right.

Even from one of Labor's stronghold seats of Victoria, Victorian Bar made a scathing submission which warned this bill would undermine free speech and stifle discussions. Professor Nick Coatsworth said, 'We must equip our communities with tools to critically assess and judge information for themselves, not legislation.' That is what we do in Australia. We find our information, we get the facts, we think about it and then we make our own decisions. What about our diggers—our fine men and women—who have worn the uniform, put their bodies on the line, their lives on the line for this country to let us have our rights, our liberties, our freedom of speech? That's what they have gone and fought for. What must they be thinking now about the fact that we can have a government that can change things at the stroke of a pen? It is absolutely bizarre. I really implore those on the other side to think about this before they ram this vote through and think about our fine men and women who have defended our country, who have defended our rights, our liberties and our freedom of speech. This is so important to them and it's so important to me. I have received hundreds of emails from my constituents, all very concerned about what this bill does to our democracy.

Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, said if this bill didn't pass it would be threatening the safety and wellbeing of Australians. Sorry, Minister, but the only threat to Australians is your rigged legislation. It is hard to believe that any government in a democracy would put forward this bill. But the one-term Albanese Labor government have. Do you think it won't affect you? Well, think again. If you challenge the government's policies or criticise election outcomes, your posts will most likely be erased.

The coalition stands firmly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill because we believe in the right of free speech and we'll fight to defend those rights each and every day while we have breath in our bodies. My constituents of Dawson are standing with me on this one. Bin the bill; it is deadset wrong.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens have been at the forefront of fighting mis- and disinformation and we have been pushing for a very long time for truth in advertising laws in this country because we have a situation where there are exceptions as to who can tell untruths. You can't do it if you're trying to sell a product, but, when it comes to politics, apparently you can. A big part of the reason that we have seen an erosion in trust in our institutions is because of the spread of mis- and disinformation has been allowed to flourish in this country, indeed around the world. What we have also been at the forefront of saying in this place is that in Australia now, if you are serious about tackling misinformation and disinformation, you have to tackle Rupert Murdoch. You have to tackle Rupert Murdoch and the massive power that that man has over media in this country. Labor and the Liberals are Murdoch cowards and have refused point blank to take on the biggest source of mis- and disinformation over the last half century in this country. We have pointed out that this failure to take on Rupert Murdoch's untrammelled power to promote mis- and disinformation has led to Australia having the second-worst concentration of media ownership in the world.

As a result of allowing that to be our media landscape, which Labor and the Liberals have because neither of them have got the guts to take him on, we've seen the undermining of reputable journalism. Allowing that massive concentration of media ownership in this country undermines reputable journalism. It is also crystal clear that this man has used his power to fuel social division, to target vulnerable minorities, to delay climate action and, most terrifyingly, to undermine democracy.

Today in this place we are dealing with some of the consequences of that as we look at what is happening around the world and see the terrifying result in the United States, where now a dangerous demagogue is running the country again. There are people around the world right now, including in Australia, who are terrified about what that will mean for them, what that will mean for women, what that will mean for people of colour, what that will mean for the climate and what that will mean for democracy. We all watched and saw violent protests on the Capitol in the United States fuelled by mis- and disinformation that somehow the previous election result was stolen or rigged—that somehow voters deciding to end the first Trump presidency was somehow a fraud and a result of the election being stolen.

You know who propagated that, aside from Trump himself? Fox News promoted that. We're not talking about what a few people might tweet—although, of course, that is part of it. We are talking about a very powerful mainstream media empire promoting mis- and disinformation that leads to democracy itself being undermined. They were so far beyond the pale in what they said in these false and fraudulent claims—that somehow the US election had been stolen—that, even in America, where they have much more liberal legislation and laws than us, they ended up shelling out $800 million to the people who run the voting machines because that was clearly—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for New England on a point of order?

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

I was wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would have a look at standing order 90 on imputation. There was a number of things that the honourable member has said that—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to know the point of order.

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

Standing order 90 on imputation. He's making the inference that both the government and the opposition are somehow unduly affected by the actions of NewsCorp and that it decides the process of government.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm listening to the member for Melbourne, and I'm listening very carefully. The member for Melbourne is in order.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a glass jaw from the member for New England! How sensitive! As soon as you start to point out the influence of Rupert Murdoch, up jumps his biggest defender, the member for New England. This is the concern.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Melbourne will resume his seat.

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

It was clearly a breach of standing order 90.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for New England—there's no direct point of order. I'm listening to the speech. He's referring to a particular incident overseas that could or may not affect legislation that's before us here today and a situation where this legislation could be used. The member for Melbourne will continue.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even in the United States, Fox News had to then shell out hundreds of millions of dollars, because they knew that those fraudulent claims that had been perpetrated had gone too far, as far as the law was concerned. But we all saw what it meant for democracy when we watched those riots unfold and heard the perpetual claim that, somehow, an election had been stolen. That continued for a very long time, and that's just one part of the mis- and disinformation that has been promoted by Rupert Murdoch over many, many years, aiding the likes of Donald Trump.

But come back here, closer to home, and you'll understand there is a reason that scientists have described Rupert Murdoch as a climate villain who has used his television and newspaper empire to promote climate science denial and to delay action. After the horrific Black Summer bushfires, we saw a very strong move to say, 'It was nothing to do with climate'—apparently, it had something to do with hazard reduction burning—so much so that even James Murdoch came out and called out the climate denialism that was on show from Rupert Murdoch in the aftermath of the Black Summer fires. Even James Murdoch called it out. The scientists have a reason for saying this. As Joelle Gergis, a climate scientist at ANU, said, 'It is hard to think of another person who has single-handedly done more to muddy the public's understanding of climate change.'

As we look around the world now and see cars washed up in streets in Spain and see extreme weather events unfolding before us with rapid speed and catastrophic implications, we can jump into a Rupert Murdoch newspaper and find commentators saying things like, 'The climate crisis turns out not to exist.' That's according to what Andrew Bolt wrote.

It is this mis- and disinformation coming from Rupert Murdoch that led Kevin Rudd to call for a royal commission into the Murdoch empire and the power of the Murdoch empire. He rightly identified that as a means to tackle mis- and disinformation and its incredibly toxic and damaging effects which see not only violence in the United States but also climate denial and delay here as the climate crisis gets even worse, even as commentators write in these papers that, apparently, the climate crisis turns out not to exist. It is why half a million people in this country signed a petition backing Kevin Rudd's call for that royal commission. Other former prime ministers have spoken out about the problems with Murdoch media dominance in this country as well.

Billionaires are controlling all the platforms at the moment. If we want to tackle mis- and disinformation and if we want to ensure that in this country people can trust the information that they are getting, but also, critically, know that big power comes with responsibility when you run a media empire, why does Rupert Murdoch get a free pass from Labor's bill? People are entitled to know that operators aren't using it to fuel misinformation and disinformation. You can see it happening. There's this ecosystem that exists between the conservative commentators on Rupert Murdoch's payroll and then others who are offline as well. They feed on each other and amplify each other. It's why Chris Cooper, a director at Purpose, rightly said when talking about After Dark that Sky News Australia was now having a 'disproportionate contribution to global climate misinformation' and that 'we see the content shared through denier networks across the globe'. As he said:

Nobody is against freedom of speech. But this is about the amplification and broadcast of what's clearly disinformation, and that is the problem here.

So I say to the government, as this bill progresses through the Senate, if you want to tackle mis- and disinformation, why aren't you looking at Rupert Murdoch? Why aren't you looking at Rupert Murdoch, when even Kevin Rudd has said that that is where we've got to start if we're serious about it? Why does Rupert Murdoch get a free pass? We can probably infer why. We know that Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are Murdoch cowards. But there's a chance to do something about it. Listen to what people like Kevin Rudd are saying.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Melbourne should refrain from using the descriptive terms that he's used to describe other members.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes this bill is still before Senate inquiry;

(2) notes the proposed legislation does not address the powerful, unchecked role that the Murdoch media empire plays in spreading mis- and disinformation in our democracy; and

(3) calls on the government to tackle mis- and disinformation spread by the Murdoch media".

If we want to have any chance of tackling the climate crisis, we have to look at those who are trying to slow down climate action, and that starts with Rupert Murdoch. If we want to understand why it is that millions of Americans think that the previous election was stolen from them, we have to start with Rupert Murdoch. So, if we are serious about tackling mis- and disinformation, we need to start with Rupert Murdoch. Most people in this country get that. We have the second-worst media market in the world when it comes to concentration. With it, that brings enormous power to people like Rupert Murdoch. As this bill works its way through the parliament now and as the Senate inquiry continues, I urge the government to take this opportunity to tackle mis- and disinformation at one of its biggest sources and have the courage to take on Rupert Murdoch.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've been hearing about the pros and cons of combating misinformation and disinformation through legislation ever since the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill was circulated. Like many members in this House, in my electorate I have been inundated with calls and emails about this bill, even more than for the Voice referendum, which I received hardly any on. I understand the government's intention with this bill is to make social media platforms liable for prosecution for content posted by people that could be considered misinformation or disinformation. Currently, a voluntary code of behaviour for social media platforms is in place to manage this.

I think what many speakers in this House have failed to grasp is the scale of growth in social media and how futile it is to think that it could, or indeed should, be controlled by legislation. If anyone has a chance, I encourage you to listen to the BBC 4 podcast series called The Gatekeepers. It investigated the rise of social media and the inability of anyone to really control it, especially with the US Congress under President Bill Clinton passing section 230, which was originally part of the Communications Decency Act. This protects Americans' freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries that we all use and come to rely on, and it states that in 26 words:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Section 230 basically prevents any civil lawsuits being used against users or services that are based on what others say. Platforms aren't publishers. They're simply a means by which individuals can freely express themselves, and those individuals are responsible for their own actions and what they share online. As a result, of course, we've seen the growth of social media, the likes of Facebook, X, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, doing just that—providing individuals with the ability to create, shape and choose the content that they want to engage with.

This bill seeks to put some form of policing into this new world order. It can't. The Australian government cannot reach beyond these shores and it shouldn't attempt to reach into the minds of people seeking to express their views, however wrong they might be. It sounds scary but that's the reality. What one might consider fake news could be another's truth or vice versa. I don't believe that the government will be able to monitor or, as this bill intends, expect social media platforms to monitor or take responsibility for other people's thoughts and ideas. Like I said, global tech platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram and so forth have their own agendas and goals to connect people everywhere, to give them access to information anywhere, anytime, and at the same time build their businesses. As private companies, they can formulate their own rules on content. It is not a legitimate role of the government to influence this.

I think the primary focus of lawmakers in tackling mis- and disinformation is to ensure that individuals are educated and empowered to make their own decisions, choices, and to take full responsibility for their lives. The best protection is to ensure we and our young people are aware of the content out there. Give them access to information, diverse perspectives, diverse ideas from which they will make informed choices based on their experiences, what they learn from their parents, what they hear from their peers and what they get from listening to the influencers that they follow. It is, indeed, a brave new world. We need to be brave and trust that individuals are informed and capable of making their own decisions and choices about what they want to hear and engage with. Government should stay in the line of managing the information and not be involved in what the people can and cannot access.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution to this debate. Misinformation and disinformation pose a significant threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. This bill will increase the transparency and accountability of the actions of digital platforms in relation to seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation, while balancing the freedom of expression that is at the very core of our democracy.

Again, I thank everyone who's contributed to the consultation process and to the debate on this bill, including the government amendments moved yesterday. I particularly acknowledge the strong advocacy and efforts to secure improvements to the bill by the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney and the member for Wentworth. The member for Goldstein advocated strongly for more to be done to support data access for researchers as a key element of transparency and accountability. The member for North Sydney emphasised the importance of the triennial review of the act being conducted as an independent review and advocated strongly for this to be made explicit in the law. The member for Wentworth has emphasised the importance of various review and reporting elements in the bill and has been testing how this will operate.

These issues have also been brought to my attention by members of the other place. I acknowledge the interest and engagement of Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young in particular. The government also welcomes interest and engagement with the staff of the offices of Senator Van, Senator Tyrrell, Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson to date. Senate scrutiny of the bill continues, and I look forward to the report of the Senate inquiry and continue to work constructively with senators on these important reforms. These amendments will refine the bill and improve Australia's laws to hold digital platforms to account and keep Australians safe online, because keeping Australians safe is the first duty of all of us in this place.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.