Division Description Changes — Bills — Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024; Second Reading — 7th Nov 2024

Change	Division
representatives vote 2024-11-07#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-11-16 19:41:25	Title Bills — Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024; Second Reading Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 - Second Reading - Murdoch media Description ~~<p class="speaker">Keith Pitt</p>~~ <p>'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 <i>Nineteen Eighty-Four</i>. 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.</p> The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-11-07.14.17) to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the original motion will remain unchanged. The amendment was introduced by Melbourne MP [Adam Bandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) (Greens). ### Motion text *> T*hat all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: > > (1) notes this bill is still before Senate inquiry; > *> (2) notes the proposed legislation does not address the powerful, unchecked role that the Murdoch media empire plays in spreading mis- and disinformation in our democracy;** and* > *> (3) calls on the government to tackle mis- and disinformation spread by** the Murdoch media".* <p>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.</p> <p>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 utilised in what is now a normal platform, a digital platform. I think that would be completely understandable.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>If the Labor Party were so concerned about misinformation in elections, perhaps they might have taken action against their own party in Queensland. I want to give some examples as to where this applies. In the last Queensland election we saw what I found to be an absolutely disgraceful campaign around abortion. This is something so sensitive, so personal, and yet we saw the Labor member for Bundaberg utilise campaign slogans which were, firstly, completely untrue; secondly, false; and, thirdly, absolutely disturbing for many of the female voters. The ALP would use lines like, 'Don't let the LNP jail women for having an abortion.' There is no need to implement legislation like this to stop that behaviour. The Labor Party could have done it.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Graham Perrett</p>~~ ~~<p>It's in the US now!</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Keith Pitt</p>~~ <p>I hear the interjection, but this is not the United States. This is Australia. It was completely unnecessary; it shouldn't have been done and you don't need legislation like this to prevent it.</p> <p>But it's not just around what can be utilised in election time. Let's look at things like banks. With this legislation in place, could we have got the banking royal commission, which found so many offences, so many things that needed to be addressed? If the individuals that fought for the banking royal commission had been silenced, as they could be under this legislation, we would never have gotten to the point where those things were addressed, where banks were found to have done absolutely unlawful activities before they got fixed. I come back to the point I made earlier: the oppressed will never know that they've been oppressed if they have nothing to compare it to. Will this end up in the equivalent of digital book-burning, because someone who is not an academic puts forward a view that the government of the day decides is unacceptable and they're removed from digital platforms?</p> <p>I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.</p> <p>We also have the issue around referendums. We've just recently been through a referendum. There are those out there who claim that the referendum was defeated because of misinformation. I clearly remember the member for Melbourne having a shot at me on <i>Q+A</i> about some of the advertising that I utilised in the referendum, claiming it was misinformation. It wasn't. It was based on actual legislation that was implemented in the Western Australian state government and applied. That was later withdrawn because it was a mistake, but it was factual. The idea that any government would be able to determine what your reasonable belief is, and prevent you from having it, is an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.</p> <p>And then we find in the legislation that there's the ability for the minister to exempt digital platforms. Well, here's a couple of proposals. For example, would this Labor government exempt a digital platform for the CFMEU, who we know have been found and convicted for criminal offences? This legislation would allow the government of the day to exempt a CFMEU digital platform. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation.</p> <p>I will use one example of the treatment of academics and scientists which is very well-known—the views of Peter Ridd, for which he was removed from his place at university in Queensland. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but I agree with his absolute right to have them. If I recall one of his elements correctly, Mr Ridd made the point that an entire flood season for a year in Queensland is the equivalent of one tide into the Great Barrier Reef, one wash-through, and that sounds a pretty commonsense approach to me. How would ACMA, which would have information-gathering powers, go about perhaps getting a warrant? At what level will that apply? Looking at advice and comments from experts in the field, I will go to the New South Wales solicitor-general, Michael Sexton, who said about this legislation, 'It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement.'</p> <p>I will come back to the referendum. The Australian people informed themselves and made a decision and that decision should be respected because it was the majority belief of the people who were able to vote in this country and that is what our democratic system is about. Of course we should protect the minorities but all governments of any stripe should govern for the majority of the people and their views, not tell them what their views are, not prevent them from having a reasonable belief, not prevent them from putting forward that view in whatever platform they wish. As I continue to make the point, I am totally accepting that online platforms are part of your actual life but you should be identified, you should have verified accounts, and, whether or not the big Meta operators like that, to be honest, I really don't care.</p> <p>This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Keith Pitt~~
'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.
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-11-07.14.17) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the original motion will remain unchanged. The amendment was introduced by Melbourne MP [Adam Bandt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) (Greens).
### Motion text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:*
>
> *(1) notes this bill is still before Senate inquiry;*
>
> *(2) notes the proposed legislation does not address the powerful, unchecked role that the Murdoch media empire plays in spreading mis- and disinformation in our democracy; and*
>
> *(3) calls on the government to tackle mis- and disinformation spread by the Murdoch media".*
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.
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 utilised 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.
If the Labor Party were so concerned about misinformation in elections, perhaps they might have taken action against their own party in Queensland. I want to give some examples as to where this applies. In the last Queensland election we saw what I found to be an absolutely disgraceful campaign around abortion. This is something so sensitive, so personal, and yet we saw the Labor member for Bundaberg utilise campaign slogans which were, firstly, completely untrue; secondly, false; and, thirdly, absolutely disturbing for many of the female voters. The ALP would use lines like, 'Don't let the LNP jail women for having an abortion.' There is no need to implement legislation like this to stop that behaviour. The Labor Party could have done it.
~~Graham Perrett~~
~~It's in the US now!~~
~~Keith Pitt~~
I hear the interjection, but this is not the United States. This is Australia. It was completely unnecessary; it shouldn't have been done and you don't need legislation like this to prevent it.
But it's not just around what can be utilised in election time. Let's look at things like banks. With this legislation in place, could we have got the banking royal commission, which found so many offences, so many things that needed to be addressed? If the individuals that fought for the banking royal commission had been silenced, as they could be under this legislation, we would never have gotten to the point where those things were addressed, where banks were found to have done absolutely unlawful activities before they got fixed. I come back to the point I made earlier: the oppressed will never know that they've been oppressed if they have nothing to compare it to. Will this end up in the equivalent of digital book-burning, because someone who is not an academic puts forward a view that the government of the day decides is unacceptable and they're removed from digital platforms?
I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.
We also have the issue around referendums. We've just recently been through a referendum. There are those out there who claim that the referendum was defeated because of misinformation. I clearly remember the member for Melbourne having a shot at me on Q+A about some of the advertising that I utilised in the referendum, claiming it was misinformation. It wasn't. It was based on actual legislation that was implemented in the Western Australian state government and applied. That was later withdrawn because it was a mistake, but it was factual. The idea that any government would be able to determine what your reasonable belief is, and prevent you from having it, is an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.
And then we find in the legislation that there's the ability for the minister to exempt digital platforms. Well, here's a couple of proposals. For example, would this Labor government exempt a digital platform for the CFMEU, who we know have been found and convicted for criminal offences? This legislation would allow the government of the day to exempt a CFMEU digital platform. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation.
I will use one example of the treatment of academics and scientists which is very well-known—the views of Peter Ridd, for which he was removed from his place at university in Queensland. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but I agree with his absolute right to have them. If I recall one of his elements correctly, Mr Ridd made the point that an entire flood season for a year in Queensland is the equivalent of one tide into the Great Barrier Reef, one wash-through, and that sounds a pretty commonsense approach to me. How would ACMA, which would have information-gathering powers, go about perhaps getting a warrant? At what level will that apply? Looking at advice and comments from experts in the field, I will go to the New South Wales solicitor-general, Michael Sexton, who said about this legislation, 'It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement.'
I will come back to the referendum. The Australian people informed themselves and made a decision and that decision should be respected because it was the majority belief of the people who were able to vote in this country and that is what our democratic system is about. Of course we should protect the minorities but all governments of any stripe should govern for the majority of the people and their views, not tell them what their views are, not prevent them from having a reasonable belief, not prevent them from putting forward that view in whatever platform they wish. As I continue to make the point, I am totally accepting that online platforms are part of your actual life but you should be identified, you should have verified accounts, and, whether or not the big Meta operators like that, to be honest, I really don't care.
This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~