MAD - Misinformation and Disinformation Bill Passes Australia's Lower House
Australia's left adopted almost all of its policies from the American Democrats, including extreme levels of censorship.
A prime example of the deliberate crushing of the voices of ordinary Australians by the nation's elites is the Albanese government's Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, bulldozed through parliament without any popular support while everyone was distracted with the US Election. While our "ally" America is barnstorming towards freedom of expression, Australia is moving in the exact opposite direction.
It is unconscionable conduct by the Albanese government, as has become the norm for this dying government.
As social commentator Alexandra Marshall has observed, under the guise of banning under-16s from using social media, good luck with that, both the Labor and Liberal Party have now admitted that EVERYONE will have to prove their identity to access social media to comply with the under 16 ban.
"This means they will have the power to ban adults from social media if they deem them guilty of 'spreading misinformation and disinformation'. They could imprison citizens and journalists for political dissent. It the next evolution of the eSafety Commission which has already tried to deny Australians access to the news. This is not about kids. It's about politics."
Here is a sampling of speeches in Australia's House of Representatives.
Keith Pitt, National Party Member
'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.
KEITH PITT
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 utilized 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.
Dan Tehan, Liberal Party
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:
The cost-of-living crisis,
An immigration crisis,
An infrastructure crisis which has seen roads deteriorate across this nation,
A health crisis where we're not seeing the doctors that we need being put in place.
Instead of 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 government wants to try and censor the people, which 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 from abusing these powers?
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.
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.
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, be it political, religious, or civil.
There's also the unequal treatment of so-called "professional news content." If something appears in mainstream media, it cannot be misinformation, but if the same view or a contrary view is put outside of professional news content, it could be misinformation.
Another concern is the bill's empowerment of ACMA:
The bill gives ACMA powers to require digital platforms to provide information relevant to misinformation and disinformation. ACMA's information-gathering powers extend to individuals associated with digital platforms, including employees, contractors, and fact checkers. They must comply 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. Does ACMA have the relevant skills to investigate, gather information, and enforce fines? It is not something that ACMA was set up to do at all.
As a result, serious concerns are being raised 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."
Alex Hawke, Liberal Party
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.
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?
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.ALEX HAWKE
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.
Colin Boyce, Liberal National Party
Mr BOYCE (Flynn) (10:33): 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, 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 (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 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.
Llew O'Brien, Former Deputy Speaker
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, 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 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?
Andrew Gee, National Party
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 criticized 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 percent 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. This will have a massive influence on how political debate is conducted in this country.
ANDREW GEE
I am also concerned that this bill gives the Minister for Communications broad powers to order misinformation investigations and hearings. These 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-fulfillment 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.
This bill cannot be supported.
Andrew Willcox, Liberal National Party
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.
What is the government's game? What are they up to? 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.
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.
