# Misinformation Bill - Australian MP David Coleman rebuttal  ## LLM SUMMARY The honourable member for Banks critiques the proposed misinformation bill, calling it an attack on free speech. ## IDEAS - Strict penalties for digital platforms under proposed misinformation bill threaten freedom of expression in Australia. - The seven-day submission timeline for public feedback undermines democratic participation and transparency. - Complex misinformation bill can potentially misuse ACMA's powers over digital communications and platforms. - Concern over government regulating opinions and suppressing diverse views in democracies should not be ignored. - Risk exists of subjective interpretation in verifying misinformation, affecting free speech. - Expert opinions and fact-checks are not infallible and mustn't solely dictate what constitutes misinformation. - Historically, expert consensus has been challenged and proven fallible, illustrating the need for diverse views. - Comparing Australian bill to other countries reveals radical shifts in managing political communications. - Bill's availability for public scrutiny was limited by the short submission window, raising procedural concerns. - Inclusion of misinformation related to elections and referendums could stifle political discourse. - Broad elements in bill's definitions allow subjective interpretation of misinformation and disinformation. - Interrogating the identity of information authors is an undue burden for digital platforms. - Allowing ministers to instigate misinformation investigations can politicise informational content. - Exemptions for academics, scientists, and comedians raise fairness concerns under new misinformation law. - Threat to religious expression from government definitions poses potential conflicts with legal interpretations. ## INSIGHTS - Government control over online speech via fines risks undermining democratic foundations in Australia. - Rapid legislative processes can bypass necessary public discussion, potentially harming complex democratic ecosystems. - Platform regulation must be balanced carefully to prevent undue restriction on legitimate discourse. - Effective regulation requires transparency and public trust; rushed processes diminish these elements. - Legal distinctions in speech laws might unfairly advantage official voices against everyday citizen conversation. - Historical shifts fostered by novel ideas showcase the importance of protecting fringe ideas in democracies. - Definitions within disinformation laws must be precise to prevent subjective judgments from stifling free speech. - Politicians ordering misinformation investigations complicates neutral access to justice for communicators. - Societal equity demands speech regulations apply uniformly regardless of using academic or lay terms. - Religious freedoms might be compromised by vague legal wording governing public discourse. ## QUOTES - "An appalling attack on free speech, it has no place in Australia and it belongs in the bin." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Fact-checkers aren't always right. There are numerous examples… which themselves constitute an opinion." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Fact-checks which are themselves subjective, which themselves constitute an opinion." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Extraordinary powers to determine what is and what is not acceptable statements online, effectively." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Include podcasts... websites that aggregate news… includes message boards," -- Honourable member for Banks - "Fact-checkers aren't always right. There are numerous examples." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Political communication in Australia. How long would you normally give people to put in submissions?" -- Honourable member for Banks - "Radically alter the landscape of political communication in Australia." -- Honourable member for Banks - "It extends to a huge number of websites... includes most of the internet." -- Honourable member for Banks - "That's misinformation and it breaches this law." -- Honourable member for Banks - "If it complies with the definition of misinformation, then if the platforms don't take action." -- Honourable member for Banks - "This is a terrible bill, we're not proceeding," -- Honourable member for Banks - "Fact-checkers aren't always right. There are numerous examples of things… which themselves constitute an opinion." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Require digital platforms to use algorithms... to downrank or reduce the spread of misinformation." -- Honourable member for Banks - "Common sense, expressed through our democracy, has made us one of the greatest nations on earth," -- Honourable member for Banks ## HABITS - Engage with legislative texts closely to understand implications on societal and democratic rights. - Foster critical thinking by recognising potential biases and fallibility of so-called expert opinions. - Participate in public consultation processes to voice concerns and engage in democracy. - Maintain awareness of legislative changes to anticipate impacts on free expression. - Cultivate diverse sources of information to challenge singular viewpoints and enrich understanding. - Develop resilience to dominant narratives by valuing dissenting voices as a democratic strength. - Consistently engage with a variety of perspectives to enhance critical evaluation of expert information. - Monitor governmental processes closely, especially when involving potential restrictions on free speech. - Advocate for transparency and accountability in legislative procedures that affect public discourse. - Assess information critically, recognising the subjectivity inherent in fact-checking processes. - Encourage dialogue and debate to preserve democratic exchange of ideas. - Navigate digital platform guidelines to continue effective communication without succumbing to self-censorship. - Investigate implications of policies thoroughly to recognise potential freedoms’ restrictions. - Challenge assumptions within policy proposals to ensure they align with democratic values. - Emphasise free speech when critiquing and discussing societal issues to preserve democratic principles. ## FACTS - Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will hold power over digital speech regulation. - Bill requires digital platforms to assess nine factors in defining misinformation seriousness. - Deadline for public submissions on the bill was closed on 30 September after seven days. - Over 24,000 submissions were received about the government's misinformation bill initially. - Platforms may face penalties of up to 5% of global revenue for non-compliance. - Global digital platforms operating in Australia are subject to the bill's provisions. - Misinformation includes statements potentially deemed truthful by individuals holding them in good faith. - Proposed misinformation law has few parallels in major Western democracies like the US and UK. - Misinformation definition applies to ordinary Australian views beyond foreign disinformation. - Digital platforms required to adhere to misinformation codes under threat of financial penalties. - Expert opinions are recommended for verifying misinformation on digital platforms. - Misinformation procedures also apply to content about elections and referendums. - Advisory from New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties criticises transparency breach in legislative process. - Catholic Bishops' Conference cited insufficient time to provide informed submission feedback. - Platforms must survey author's identity, significantly affecting independent content creators. ## REFERENCES - Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) - New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties - Queensland Council for Civil Liberties - Catholic Bishops' Conference - Minister for Communications - Dr Nick Coatsworth ## ONE-SENTENCE TAKEAWAY Government misinformation bill threatens free speech in Australia by empowering ACMA with extensive regulatory control. ## RECOMMENDATIONS - Conduct a comprehensive review to ensure legislative processes incorporate ample public input and transparency. - Adopt balanced approaches in misinformation regulation to guard against overreach affecting free speech. - Engage public forums for inclusive debate, ensuring diversity in presented perspectives on new legislation. - Encourage independent reviews to assess fair implementation impacts of misinformation laws across society. - Ensure fact-checking and inspections retain human oversight to avoid algorithmic bias dominance. - Balance expert opinions with lay understanding in public discourses, respecting democratic diversity. - Design policies with clear, objective definitions to avoid broad, vague interpretations of misinformation. - Implement training for digital platforms in evaluating misinformation without overburdening them. - Encourage public discourse and critique of fact-checkers, holding them accountable. - Avoid rushed legislation by guaranteeing adequate time for public and institutional review processes. # transcript Government business, order of the day number seven, communications legislation amendment combating misinformation and disinformation bill 2024, resumption of debate on the second reading. The question is that this bill be now read a second time and I call the honourable member for Banks. Well thank you Deputy Speaker and I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill but I shouldn't be speaking on this bill because this bill should never ever have been put before this parliament. Deputy Speaker this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever presented to the Australian Parliament by a government. It is an appalling attack on free speech, it has no place in Australia and it belongs in the bin. Now we have to start this whole sordid story back in June Deputy Speaker when the government first published mark one, this misinformation bill and the reaction Deputy Speaker had very little precedent in the history of our country. Some 24,000 submissions were made to the inquiry into this bill and what did they overwhelmingly say? What they overwhelmingly said was this is an attack on free speech which will mean that ordinary Australians will have their legitimately held opinions suppressed and censored. The overwhelming majority of those submissions said this bill must be thrown aside and we should never see it again. That's what they said. So what the Minister did, the Communications Minister in November, so this process played out for about six months and it was an unedifying process Deputy Speaker. The bill was slammed by the Human Rights Commission, by the New South Wales Civil Liberties Council, by religious bodies, by frankly everyone pretty much Deputy Speaker because it was such an appalling piece of legislation no one could quite get their head around the fact that the Albanese government had put this forward. We know the Prime Minister is not a detailed person Deputy Speaker so he probably hadn't read the bill. He probably hadn't read it. He wouldn't have read the bill. But the Communications Minister presumably did and thought it was a really good idea to put it forward. Anyway, we get to November, the Minister says, yeah, actually we better get rid of this and so withdraws the bill. Then the government then goes through a 10-month process of consulting on the bill. So rather than just saying, look, this is a terrible bill, we're not proceeding, they've consulted on it for some 10 months. But what they've come back with is a bill which still betrays our democracy, still has no place in Australia and still is a shocking attack on free speech because this bill will radically alter the landscape of political communication in Australia. And you know what the government did when they put out this bill? Something that is very concerning I think, Deputy Speaker. So a very complex bill that's seeking to change political communication in Australia. How long would you normally give people to put in submissions on an issue of that complexity? A radical change to how we communicate with the opportunity for government regulators to censor free speech. You'd give people a while to comment on that, wouldn't you? Especially if you've got an explanatory memorandum that's more than 100 pages, a bill with many, many provisions. So you know how long, Deputy Speaker, the government gave people to put in submissions? Seven days. They closed submissions on 30 September. If you go to the website of the committee that's looking into this bill, you try and put in a submission. You can't because the submissions have closed, which is shameful. And what did people say about that? Well, what did the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties say, Deputy Speaker, about that appalling process? They said, "We strongly assert that the decision to only allow seven working days for public submissions on such a complex and critical piece of legislation is incompatible with the principles of transparent governance." They went on to say, "This extremely short process will exclude many voices and undermine the democratic principles of participation and inclusion." That's the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties. That's what they said about this government's process on the bill. What about the Catholic Bishops' Conference? What did they say, Deputy Speaker? They said, "Given the committee has only been allowed one week for the preparation of submissions, the conference has not had time to give the bill adequate consideration." Now this is the Catholic Bishops' Conference that speaks on behalf of the millions of Catholics in Australia and they have said in their submission that they did not have adequate time to consider the bill. Now that is an absolute disgrace, Deputy Speaker. And what did the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties say? They said, "We object to the extraordinarily short period of time for the making of submissions in relation to this important bill." Other submissions that have been published say very similar things. I would have thought that the government would show greater respect for the Catholics of Australia than have a situation where the Catholic Bishops' Conference says, "We were only allowed one week for the preparation of submissions and the conference has not had time to give the bill adequate consideration." You would have thought that might concern the government, but no, because the Minister for Communications has structured this process to deny people the opportunity to participate in submissions. It is absolutely shameful, Deputy Speaker. And then we get to the substance of the bill and that's where the story gets even worse, Deputy Speaker. The fundamental structure of this bill is to give the government regulator, ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, extraordinary powers to determine what is and what is not acceptable statements online, effectively. Because basically what ACMA does is say, "Well, look, here are some rules that you digital platforms have to follow in relation to misinformation and disinformation. If you don't follow those rules, you could get fines of up to 5 per cent of your global revenue." So, if you're a digital platform, that's going to get your attention, isn't it? You could get a fine of up to 5 per cent of your global revenue. So, you're going to be listening to what ACMA says. They have the power. That gives ACMA an extraordinary power over those digital platforms. When the bill talks about digital platforms, we're not just talking about the large ones. It's not just the Metas and Googles of the world. It extends to a huge number of websites. It includes podcasts. It includes websites that aggregate news. It includes websites that aggregate other forms of material. It can include message boards and a whole range of different things. It includes search engines and so on. It includes most of the internet. Not only Australian sites but global sites. Any global site that has operations within Australia that provides services to Australians—which is effectively all of them—they have to comply with this law as well. ACMA is going to be telling all of these digital platforms, so-called, what it is that they have to do to comply with this rule. What does the bill say about the sort of things that ACMA can require? If you look at page 101 of the explanatory memorandum, it's quite clear. It says, for instance, that digital communications platform providers could be required to use automated processes and technology to detect and act appropriately on misinformation and disinformation under a misinformation code or misinformation standard. For example, they could be required to use technology or algorithms to downrank or reduce the spread of misinformation. If we take out the technical talk, what does that mean? Censor stuff. Censor material. Make sure people don't see it. That's what it means. If you're a digital platform, you've got ACMA hanging over your head and the threat of substantial fines. You, of course, are going to err on the side of ensuring that you don't do anything which could fall foul of ACMA, and so you are going to censor material to make sure that you don't get fined. That's what is going to happen, and it's going to happen on a large scale. As we turn to the key provisions of the bill, we have to remember that framework. ACMA decides how it is imposed on the platforms. ACMA has the force of law, and if digital platforms don't comply, there are very significant consequences for them. One of the key issues here is that misinformation, as defined in the bill, is incredibly broad and will include things that are said by Australians effectively all the time. The definition of misinformation includes statements that are held in good faith. You might believe something with all your heart. You might really believe that it's true, and it's something that you hold dear. But under this bill, that can be misinformation. If it complies with the definition of misinformation, then if the platforms don't take action about that so-called misinformation, they can get in a lot of trouble. We're not just talking about things like disinformation from foreign powers seeking foreign interference. We're talking about the opinions of ordinary Australians. This is a very important point. It doesn't have to be malicious. It doesn't have to be designed to deceive. It can be something that you absolutely and strongly believe to be true, but that can be misinformation under this bill. How do you work out if something is misinformation under this bill? There are basically two key elements to that. One is that it has to be reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm. The first limb is reasonably verifiable as misleading. Think about that. Often to reasonably verify that something is misleading is an entirely subjective process. Because what I might think is misleading, one of my parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House might say, 'No, that's not misleading.' What someone in the community thinks is misleading, others may disagree. That's why in a democracy what we do is we trust the superpower of the common sense of the average person. That is what democracy is all about. That common sense has served Australia incredibly well. Because that common sense, expressed through our democracy, has made us one of the greatest nations on earth—I think the greatest. So that's what we do in a democracy. We might disagree. Someone might have an unfashionable opinion. It might be an opinion that is seen as a little bit different, but that's okay. Because in a democracy we're allowed to have unfashionable opinions. We're allowed to have opinions that might not accord with the so-called experts of the day. The explanatory memorandum of the bill actually goes into this question of how you actually establish if something is misleading. The explanatory memorandum says, 'In practical terms, digital communications platform providers will need to identify misinformation or disinformation themselves, including identifying content on their digital communications platform that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, pursuant to such duties or relevant instruments.' And then it says, 'Some matters that could be considered when determining if content is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive include'—first one—'whether the information has been fact-checked by a third-party organisation' and, the second one, 'expert opinions or advice.' So these are the first two examples that the government's own notes to the bill provide. So the digital platforms are supposed to somehow sift through the material that appears on their platform, determine if it might be misleading, and what the government tells them to do in order to work out if it's misleading is, effectively, 'Has it been fact-checked by some third-party organisation and what do the experts say?' But let's be frank, Mr Speaker. Fact-checkers aren't always right. There are numerous examples of things that are described as fact-checks which are themselves subjective, which themselves constitute an opinion. And whilst we all benefit immensely from the work of experts in all fields of endeavour, and we're fortunate to live in a country with so many people with such great expert skills, it's also true that experts are not perfect. It's also true that expert opinion can change. And if we think about history, think about all the times in history where somebody came along with an idea that was different and was shunned by the experts and fact-checkers of that day. They said, 'You'd be wrong. That's not how the sun rotates around the earth,' or whatever the scientific debate of the day was, or the debate on any topic. So it's very clear that expert opinion, whilst valuable, is far from infallible. And I think pretty much every expert would acknowledge that, including Dr Nick Coatsworth, who spoke about this issue very eloquently earlier this week. And it's also true that fact-checkers are themselves human and subjective and make mistakes. So the notion that we're going to hold up these two bodies as somehow infallible and somehow determining what the rest of us can and cannot say is extraordinary. But it's actually in the legislation put forward by the Government of Australia. And I should note, if you look around the world looking for similar legislation to this misinformation bill, you won't really find anything quite like this. Certainly not in places like the United States, certainly not in places like the United Kingdom or New Zealand or a whole range of places. This is a very radical proposal. So the definition of working out if something is misleading is plainly absurd. Then the other thing that the digital platforms have to do, bearing in mind that the digital platform might be a podcaster in Brunswick, it doesn't have to be some huge digital platform. The second thing they have to do is they have to assess nine different matters under the bill, extraordinarily, to determine if it is likely to cause or contribute to serious harm. And it doesn't have to actually cause harm or be likely to cause harm. It only has to be likely to contribute to harm, which again is a very broad concept, as many people have pointed out. But what the digital platforms have to consider, and this is not optional, this actually says must in the legislation. I'm going to quickly read out the things they have to do. They have to have regard to the following matters. The circumstances in which the content is disseminated. The subject matter of the information in the content that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive. The potential reach and speed of the dissemination. The author of the information. The purpose of the dissemination. Whether the information has been attributed to a source, and if so, the authority of the source, and whether the attribution is correct. Other related information disseminated that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive. And my personal favourite, H, any matter determined by the minister. Now this is just extraordinary, this is the Government of Australia that has put this forward. This is just an extraordinary thing. And I think it's particularly notable that in this list of things that has to be considered is the author of the information. So the digital platform is required to effectively conduct an examination of who is this author? Why would that be there? Why does the identity of the author have to be interrogated? And you just think about that in practice, Deputy Speaker. It is absurd. And as I said, the platform doesn't have to believe that harm has been caused. They don't even have to believe that harm is reasonably likely to have been caused. They just have to believe that it's reasonably likely that harm could have been contributed to. Which is an extraordinary broad concept. And as I say, if you look at the submissions to this bill, they point these things out very, very clearly. But you've still got more to do if you're the digital platform. Your job is not complete because you then have to assess whether or not the content is one of 32 categories of things that can be serious harm. And these are all the various things that are covered by the bill. Now this is a very important point, Deputy Speaker. Within those 32 categories are elections and referendums. So elections are in, referendums are in. And if you look at page 47 of the explanatory memorandum of the bill, it says very clearly in relation to what is captured that it includes false, misleading or deceptive information about electoral candidates or referendum proposals which could have the effect of denying Australians the right to have a say in the conduct of public affairs based on informed choice. So if something complies with the extraordinarily broad and convoluted definitions in this bill of misinformation and it's about an electoral candidate, it might be the Prime Minister. Might be the Minister for Communications. Could be anyone. Then the digital platforms will need to ensure that they are taking action to ensure they don't get fined by ACMA. And it also applies to referendums. Now I seem to recall that we had a referendum not long ago. And I seem to recall, Deputy Speaker, that during that referendum many arguments were put forward that the government didn't agree with. Those arguments were put forward in good faith by Australians who strongly disagreed with the referendum proposal. And it turns out that 61% of Australians had serious concerns about that referendum proposal too. But what did the government say every day in this chamber about those arguments that they didn't like about the referendum proposal? They said they were misinformation. But they didn't have this law then. So now they would. So what happens in the next referendum? What happens when people criticise the government of the day? And it might not be, it could be this government, it could be any government. And the government of the day says, well no, that's misinformation and it breaches this law. So that is extraordinary. As I said, Dr Nick Coatsworth made some important contribution this week talking about this issue also in the context of public health and the fact that whilst, of course, expert opinion on public health should be our guiding light, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to take a section to it or disagree from time to time. And that clearly is a very sensible observation. It also includes imminent harm to the economy or a section of the economy. And how broad is that, Deputy Speaker? And how many things get said in this chamber every day that one could say could cause imminent harm to the economy or a section of the economy? And it also requires the platforms to determine how serious the consequences are of these various statements. But there is more, Deputy Speaker. Section 68 of the bill acknowledges the fact that the Minister for Communications has the power to personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings. So we are here in the democracy of Australia. We've got an elected politician. We've got a bill before us that says that elected politician should be able to order an investigation into a digital platform if, in the Minister's view, that digital platform isn't doing enough about misinformation and/or disinformation. And the Minister can also order a public hearing on these matters. Again, in one of the world's great democracies. So imagine the voice scenario, Deputy Speaker. The Minister says, 'Look, I think digital platform X has misinformation about the voice. I am ordering an investigation into that digital platform and I'm also ordering public hearings.' It's extraordinary that this is being contemplated in this legislation. And there are very serious consequences. If somebody doesn't appear before those inquiries or investigations, they can be fined. There are provisions under section 202 of the Act for jail time as well if someone doesn't appear. So those powers are extraordinary. And then you've also got this completely unfair situation where some Australians are exempted but some Australians are not. So academic scientists, artists, comedians are nothing against any of those groups, Deputy Speaker. They all contribute immensely to our country. But they're not infallible. But if under this bill, if an ordinary Australian disagrees with, say, an academic about a topic, then as long as the academic is talking in the context of their job effectively, it cannot be misinformation. The statement made by the academic. But the statement made by the ordinary Australian can be misinformation. Now how on earth can that be fair or appropriate, Deputy Speaker? And that also applies if the person who isn't the academic says exactly the same thing as the academic. One can be misinformation, one can't. And finally, Deputy Speaker, there's a concerning impact here on Australians of religious faith. The government has included a so-called exemption for religion, but the exemption has enormous holes in it. And as the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said, and I want to quote from this, "It leaves open the question of what is considered reasonable and whether a religious purpose extends beyond religious institutions to Australians practising or sharing their religious faith. It also leaves open to a judicial authority to decide what is and is not reasonable when it comes to expressing a religious belief and whether the expression of religious belief is always for a religious purpose." As the conference has stated in numerous submissions on other items of legislation, it is suboptimal to have courts and tribunals adjudicate on the reasonableness of religious expression. And that is very concerning for Australians of faith, Deputy Speaker. So I'm conscious of the time, Deputy Speaker. This bill is a shameful attack on our democracy. It should never have been put forward. It is an appalling reflection on this government that it has been put forward. I would encourage anyone who's listening tonight to actually try and read this legislation. You'll be shocked at what you see in it. The Coalition will fight this every step of the way because this bill belongs in the bin.