Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At a time when Australians expect their government to be doing everything in its power to address the cost-of living-crisis that they face, Labor is instead trying to control the public debate. This is one of the most egregious pieces of legislation I've seen in my 2½ years in this place, and the coalition will not be supporting this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. There has undoubtedly been a rise in online harm, whether it's bullying, deepfakes or the abhorrent spreading of footage after violent attacks. As lawmakers, we have a duty to keep Australians safe from online harm, but this must always be balanced with the value of free speech that has underpinned our democracy. Democracy is moved forward when we can debate issues and have opinions heard. No great nation has ever been built by a government that considers itself the arbiter of all truth.

But the challenges we face today in modern society aren't new. They are challenges that have been faced by civilisations for centuries. Let's use one example of a citizen many, many years ago: Galileo. The trial of Galileo comes to mind. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial. What was his crime? His egregious crime was holding the belief that the earth revolves around the sun. This was deemed incorrect by the church at the time. This was the second time that Galileo was interrogated for his strongly-held personal beliefs, despite the fact that it had been known for centuries that the earth was not the centre of the universe. Under this misinformation bill, if Galileo was posting his views online, his views would be deemed misinformation, despite the fact that it was his reasonably-held belief. Even if he didn't intend any harms by his belief, they could still be labelled misinformation and shut down from the public debate. This highlights the delicate balance between combating harmful misinformation and ensuring the freedom to explore and discuss new ideas.

If you try looking to other countries for similar legislation, you won't find it. Countries that are comparable to Australia, including New Zealand, the US and the UK, do not have laws that remotely resemble what the Albanese government is proposing. This is the government's second attempt at ramming through this bill, following overwhelming opposition to its first bill from human rights groups, civil liberties organisations, lawyers and over 20,000 Australians, with submissions overwhelmingly saying that this bill was an attack on free speech and would censor the legitimately-held opinions of Australians.

Those opposite went back to the drawing board. They went through a 10-month consultation period and they've come back into this House with a bill that still attacks free speech and will radically alter the landscape of political communication in this country. To make things worse, the government has limited consultation on this second bill. They knew how bad it was after the Human Rights Commission, lawyers, barristers and Australians had their say on the first round. This time they limited the consultation period to just seven days. Let's think about that.

This is a bill where they're asking the Australian people to trust them. There asking the Australian people to trust the government, build trust in our society, and they give the community seven days to respond, because they didn't like the response in the first, 10-month consultation period. That tells you everything you need to know about this government. They don't really want to listen to the Australian people. It's all about beach houses and flights. This is by far one of the biggest changes to Australian democracy. It's one of the most complex and wide-reaching bills we have seen, with an explanatory memorandum of over 100 pages, and Australians were given seven days to make submissions. Submissions have now closed, which is shameful. It shows that the government knows this is a bad bill, and it shows the contempt the government has for the Australian people.

The lack of consultation on this bill was slammed by the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, which said:

… we strongly assert that the decision to allow only seven working days for public submissions on such a critical and complex piece of legislation is incompatible with the principles of transparent governance.

It reminds me of when the Prime Minister talked about a kinder, gentler parliament and then went on to insult every Australian with Tourette syndrome by directly attacking the shadow Treasurer—another example of the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who said one thing before the election and has done completely different things since the election.

With this bill giving the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, the power to determine what is and is not an acceptable statement online, ACMA will determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. If they are not, the digital platforms will face fines of up to five per cent of their annual turnover. The digital platforms will want to avoid these fines, so they will censor a large amount of free speech of everyday Australians who want to have their say online. When it comes to digital platforms, the government isn't just talking about what you post on Facebook or Instagram. It extends beyond that to include websites, podcasts, news sites, message boards and search engines—in reality, most of the internet in Australia. ACMA is going to be telling all of these digital platforms how to comply with these new laws. Let's have a look at how they are going to do that.

The explanatory memorandum makes clear:

Digital communications platform providers could be required to use automated processes and technology to detect and act appropriately on misinformation and disinformation … For example, they could be required to use technology or algorithms to 'down rank' or reduce the spread of misinformation …

Algorithms are one of the biggest challenges we face with social media. When I talk to people who aren't very tech savvy about how algorithms work, the best example I can come up with is Netflix. I don't get much time to watch Netflix, but, without looking at who's signed in, you can tell pretty quickly whether it's my station or my kids' or my wife's, depending on what pops up. That's the reality of an algorithm. The Australian people will not even know that they are not being shown the content they want to see. It will be hidden from them before it even becomes possible for them to read that information, get a wide variety of views and make an educated decision.

Clearly, to avoid hefty fines, these platforms are going to begin censoring all kinds of material. It's going to happen on a large scale, with algorithms trained to censor posts and content that fall into the government's loose definition of 'misinformation'. This definition includes statements that are held in good faith. People have opinions and beliefs, but, under this bill, even if you believe something with all your heart, that belief can be labelled 'misinformation'. It doesn't have to be a malicious post. Even if it was not intended to deceive, it can be misinformation under this bill and the platforms will censor the post.

Digital platforms are required to sift through and determine content that may be misleading, and the government has told them, through this bill, that the test that they should apply is whether the post has been fact-checked by a third-party organisation, and what the experts say. We have all experienced fact-check sites that we don't agree with, fact checks that have quite a bit of bias in them, but we apparently have to accept it—although this creates an awkward situation for the government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. We hear the Treasurer talk about—I'll quote him because I don't agree with it—the $1 trillion of debt that they were left with. Now, the problem the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and those opposite have when they use that statement is that ABC fact check found that that was not true. The budget papers showed that it was between $517 billion and $535 billion when you look at net debt, and about 35 per cent of that was actually accumulated under the Rudd and Gillard governments.

So we have again the hypocrisy of the Treasurer standing up in question time and blatantly creating misinformation—by the definition in this bill—for the Australian people. I have no doubt that the Treasurer would have seen that fact check from the ABC, but he continues to spread that misinformation—by his own government's definition—to the Australian people today.

See this speech in context