Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wanted to follow on from my good friend Senator O'Neill around the misinformation and disinformation line of questioning that we had from the opposition today in question time. I want to focus on a number of inaccurate claims that those opposite—with the irony—are trying to put out there in the community around the substance and the merits of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which was before this parliament. There have been many inaccurate claims.

We heard some contributions earlier from senators opposite, and, to be clear, this bill that was put forward by the government is not a censorship bill. Nothing in this bill empowers the regulator themselves to take down content or accounts or to require platforms to do so, unless it is disinformation that results in behaviour that is not authentic. The key motive here is about making sure that we get rid of and take away the ability for a number of computer generated bot programs on the internet to keep pushing misinformation and disinformation across our media platforms.

The idea that this bill is a threat to free speech or outsources censorship decisions to big tech is just absurd. The platforms that we were discussing are already the chief censors. Every single day they are unaccountable, because posts remain live. They have the power to take down posts—or not. There is no transparency around how these companies deal with complaints when one puts forward a complaint about certain posts online and what the methodology is that sits behind these posts. What we've seen in recent times, around antisemitism and the like, is that—surprise, surprise—these types of posts somehow manage to be on the top of your feed every morning when you wake up and check your social media platforms. Why is that? Why do these social media companies feel it is the right course of action to promote these anti-social-cohesion type posts? What we're trying to do is de-escalate the temperature in our community, yet what they are trying to do is increase the temperature and cause conflict.

The bill also isn't inconsistent with our international human rights obligations. It preserves the freedom of speech and actually protects human rights online. The bill also doesn't empower the minister or the regulator to investigate everyday Australians or throw them in jail, as we heard from some senators across the aisle. So that's another false allegation that is being put to the government. The bill doesn't cover all content or opinion; it sets a very high bar. The bill also won't impinge on free or open debate in Australia. It contains carve-outs to ensure that there is free and open debate. The bill is, I believe, a very modest and sensible approach in light of all the other debate that we have heard not just in this place but also in the community, and the government had consulted with many stakeholders before presenting the bill to the parliament,

But, sadly, what we find as we get closer to the end of the year—it's the last sitting week of the parliament—is that those opposite, classically, will oppose things and try and make sure that this government—

Every single time, Senator Cadell. They work with the crossbench to frustrate the agenda of the government, the democratically elected government, in this place. Instead of making sure that our mandate, our ability, to represent Australians and implement Labor Party policy is honoured and respected, those opposite choose a different course of action, playing pure politics with the lives of many people. People right now deserve government's assistance and deserve the government to provide some certainty, to provide protection and to provide a framework that, should there be a worst-case scenario—we heard from Senator O'Neill that people are being abused online—stops these media platforms from promoting misinformation and disinformation.

What did those opposite say?

No, we don't. Why? Because we want to play politics in the lead-up to the next federal election. And that is the sad case that we are now facing in this place. Instead of actually putting words where his mouth is, the Leader of the Opposition stood in the other place and was proud to back the government and work with the government on making sure that people under the age of 16 are actually banned from social media platforms.