Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers to all coalition questions during the course of question time. Let me say this: what a great honour it is to kick this off on the very day that the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 died in the Australian parliament, after thousands and thousands of Australians contacted their senators and local representatives and said, 'Kill the bill.' Well, the bill is dead; however, the answers given by Senator Wong to Senator McKenzie's questions did not instil confidence that the bill will not make a reappearance in some guise sometime in the future.

I appreciate that Senator Wong wasn't the responsible minister for this absolute debacle. It was the Minister for Communications. I went back and read the minister's statement yesterday, when she withdrew the bill from today's Notice Paper today, and this is what the minister said: 'It is clear there is no pathway to legislate this proposal through the Senate.' That's what the minister said. Does that give anyone confidence that the Labor government have had some sort of Damascene conversion and have decided to stand up for freedom of speech in this country? Does it give anyone any confidence that they've actually listened to the thousands of Australians who made submissions, saying they did not want this piece of legislation? No—absolutely not.

The only reason they've withdrawn this legislation is that they didn't have the votes. They haven't changed their philosophical position. They haven't changed their position that ACMA, a government agency—which should be known as the 'Ministry of Truth' under this proposal—should have a role in telling us what is misinformation or disinformation. They haven't changed their philosophical position on this at all. The only thing that has changed is that they don't have the votes, and the Minister for Communications made that very clear in the statement she issued yesterday. I'll repeat it: 'It is clear there is no pathway to legislate this proposal through the Senate.' There's not a single piece of recognition that thousands upon thousands of Australians wrote to their representatives and said they didn't want this bill.

This bill represented an attack on the free speech of all Australians. It represented giving a government agency, ACMA, the power to decide what was misinformation or disinformation, as opposed to all Australians having the freedom to make that judgement in the battleground of ideas. That's what this bill sought to do. It was an intrusion on freedom of speech in this country, and, along the way, it had some absolutely outrageous provisions.

Firstly, the communications minister could have personally ordered misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings on terms of her own choosing. The Minister for Communications would have become the commissar of free speech, deciding what was and wasn't legitimate free speech. She would have been able to order investigations—show trials—into what was or wasn't free speech. Secondly, if people didn't cooperate with the public hearings ordered by the minister, they could have faced jail for up to one year—absolutely extraordinary stuff buried in the provisions of this awful piece of legislation, which died a legislative death today. Thirdly, religious groups and faith based groups were concerned that the bill would have impinged upon freedom of religion. They were concerned the bill would have empowered digital platforms and government bureaucrats to determine whether or not a religious belief was 'reasonable'—again, overstepping the mark in terms of legitimate activity of the Australian government.

I say to all of those thousands of Australians who wrote to their federal representatives and senators: you made a profound difference in relation to this bill dying a legislative death today.

I also repeat what I said to many of you in response: if this bill ever makes a reappearance, I will oppose this bill, I will vote against this bill and I will always speak out against this bill.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too want to refer to death, but I want to refer to three deaths that happened as a result of mis- and disinformation. Constable Matthew Arnold was 26 when he died alongside Constable Rachel McCrow, who was 29 years of age. Constable Keely Brough and Constable Randall Kirk survived an attack on them, but Alan Dare, the neighbour of a person who was absolutely influenced by mis- and disinformation, also lost his life that day.

What we've seen from Mr Dutton, in the aftermath of the Wieambilla shootings, in the state that he purports to represent, is this statement:

… the spread of disinformation on the internet and the way in which that infects people's minds and … contributes at least to them committing extreme acts should be of concern to any right-thinking Australian.

Yet what we've seen is opposition to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which would have combatted dangerous conspiracy theories. Senator Scarr has indicated accurately that there is not sufficient support here in this chamber for this particular disinformation and misinformation bill to go through. But the reality of disinformation and misinformation in the community continues.

We saw, in the aftermath of the Bondi and Wakeley stabbings, Sussan Ley talk tough, saying Elon Musk's approach was a 'free-for-all' and that X should be forced to obey Australian laws. But the problem of misinformation and disinformation continues on X because we haven't been able to find a path forward here in the Senate. In fact, I think efforts to find a path forward together dissolved the minute that the Leader of the Opposition, in an arrogant and reckless move, determined that he should just get rid of this bill instead of work to make it an effective piece of legislation to prevent the spread of the kind of disinformation that cost the lives of those wonderful community minded public servants, the police, who went to attend to a welfare check on the Trains.

In the inquest following that terrible consequence of misinformation and disinformation, a specialist from the emergency response team made a statement about the experience, on arrival, of finding people so paranoid and so jacked up on conspiracy and information that was absolutely inaccurate. This was how it was described:

It was like nothing I've ever seen … they were almost robotic, no gestures, no yelling out.

Dr Andrew Aboud, a forensic psychiatrist, went to evidence about was happening behind the scenes that led to the deaths of constables serving their nation, because of misinformation and disinformation. The digital footprint revealed the extent of the delusions of Nathaniel, Gareth and Stacey Train, and there were four areas of major concern. Gareth Train, in particular, focused on conspiracy theories. They are just one source of misinformation and disinformation, and, certainly, this bill is not going to go through today and is not going to be re-introduced, but the problem is not going to go away. Gareth Train had a belief that he was being monitored by government agencies, and he was led to believe, through deep immersion in disinformation and misinformation, that police were state actors, devils and demons.

That is why we saw him take that devastating action. He even believed that neurological bioweapons were being manipulated that would turn humans into nonhumans. That is the sort of mis- and disinformation that remains a problem for Australia to deal with. This legislation is not going to advance but the problem remains.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard Senator Birmingham ask Senator Gallagher earlier about the insolvency rates in Australia being at record highs, and mentioning that when she was questioned about this last week she said, on a number of occasions, 'The facts don't support that.' Well, let's look at the facts. The insolvency rates in Australia right now are 25 per cent higher than they were prior to the pandemic. The rate in October was 5.04 per cent, which means one in 20 businesses are failing. In the construction sector it's higher—5.3 per cent—and in the hospitality sector it's 8.5 per cent. CreditorWatch expects this rate to get worse; it expects business conditions to continue to deteriorate. The chief executive officer of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia—COSBOA—aid in their 2024 small-business perspectives report said that small businesses are under colossal pressure. But we heard from Senator Gallagher that the facts don't support that.

Small businesses—and the COSBOA report makes this clear—are grappling with increasing costs in energy, increasing costs in rent, increasing costs in insurance, higher interest rates, and complex industrial relations changes. That is a perfect storm putting small businesses under colossal pressure. Let's look at each of those in turn. Electricity prices are up 30 per cent since the election if we ignore the government's one-off rebates. Gas prices are up 30 per cent since the election. Rent is up 16.3 per cent since the election. Insurance is up 17.3 per cent since the election. We've had interest rates increase 12 times by a total of 400 basis points, with no relief in sight. As for complex industrial relations changes, we've had 757 additional pages added to the Fair Work Act since 2022. We've had broken promises, not to reintroduce multi-employer bargaining. We've had great uncertainty for small business introduced in terms of the status of casuals and the meaning of the right to disconnect. It's little wonder with those complex industrial relations systemic changes that labour productivity has declined now by two per cent in the past two years. Businesses are grappling with higher costs of energy, higher costs of rent, higher costs of insurance, higher interest rates and complex industrial relations changes. It's little wonder that they are feeling under so much pressure.

We also have, because of this government's mismanagement of the economy, consumers with much less to spend. Disposable incomes are down 8.7 per cent since the first quarter of 2022. That's worse than any other advanced economy. It's worse than any other OECD economy. In fact, it's the worst since records began. What that means is if you're an average full-time earner on $95,000 a year, you have 150 less per week to spend in disposable income. That means you're spending less on a meal out and less on coffees. It's no wonder that, particularly in the hospitality sector, small businesses are struggling. Small businesses are small in size, but in terms of their scale and importance to the economy, they are massive. They employ more than five million people. They're often started by and run by families and extended family units, and they are the heart of many communities in our towns and suburbs and cities across Australia. So if small business is doing it tough, that's not just a problem for them; it's a problem for all of us. It's a problem for the people who work for small businesses, it's a problem for the people who run the small businesses, it's a problem for their customers who rely on small businesses, and it's fundamentally a problem for the health of the economy.

Rather than saying, 'The facts don't support that,' and denying that there is a problem, denying that there is an issue, denying that electricity prices are higher, denying that gas prices are higher, denying that interest rates are at record highs and denying that rent and insurance are both going up, this government needs to grapple with the scale of the economic challenges facing our nation and to grapple and sympathise with—at least as a very first point of call—the challenges being faced by small businesses in particular, who are, frankly, getting smashed by this government's economic policy. We have seen insolvency rates higher than they have ever been—the highest since records began, in 1999—and their business climate is only growing worse.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is a liberal democracy, and, in a liberal democracy, people would expect that there is a reasonable restraint on the state's capacity to interfere with the lives of its citizens. This misinformation and disinformation bill strikes at the heart of that settlement between the people and the government of that state, and I was surprised to hear Senator Ciccone defend this concept of a misinformation and disinformation bill because I think most people have come to the view that this was a very bad idea. I understand that the government is a bit like the dog that caught the car. It doesn't know what it wants to do, so it's found a grab bag of ideas of things to pursue, perhaps half-heartedly. But this misinformation and disinformation bill—I must say, for the record, this is one of the most aggravating and nebulous terms thrown around in the current public debate—is a very bad idea, and there is no way that you could deploy a scheme where a bureaucrat would be asked to determine what is misinformation, what is disinformation, what is truth and what is false.

The reality is that we live in an age where there is a smorgasbord of opportunity for people to make up their own minds because of the disaggregation of the traditional media. It still exists in various forms and is being complemented by people being able to engage in their own form of journalism, citizen journalism perhaps, through various mediums. We have more choice than ever. People can make up their own minds. People can shop around, and there is still the traditional media. We've never licensed newspapers. People have always been able to make up their own minds based on reading what they want to access. So the idea of the government coming in—and some of the provisions in this bill were frankly very spooky and scary—and the minister deciding to commission an inquiry into an idea or into an outlet is crazy stuff.

We all respect Mr Rudd's position in Washington, but some of the things that he was doing when he was a private citizen in pursuing the idea that a certain media outlet was running the world and engaging in these conspiracy theories is just as dangerous as the concept of a minister creating a department or a bureaucrat to decide what is true and what is false. Thank goodness this idea has been junked. Long may that be the case, and we will fight against any return of this bad idea.

Question agreed to.