The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which was tabled on September 12, makes it a civil offence to criticise banking institutions, amongst other things.

This bill is frankly a disgrace to the Australian public and should be firmly opposed. It appears to be a censorship bill designed to combat alternative media and citizen voices, raising the alarm on a number of controversial topics.

Taboo topics on social media include Digital ID, the Covid pandemic measures and vaccines, and criticising LGBTQ+ activism. It is not a conspiracy to say that the ABC dictates much of the mainstream news agenda while being funded by the government through direct grants. The government, therefore, is actively curating much of the news cycle. Through additional legislation, such as the above bill, the government will have the power to shut down free speech and alternative positions over a range of controversial topics. These are Orwellian methods, and what’s worse, the government is achieving this through taxpayer-funded measures.

It is outrageous, undemocratic, and tyrannical behaviour. The Constitution, through Section 7 and Section 24, contains an implied right to freedom of speech or political communication because these constitutional provisions allow for the fair representation and election of members of parliament. For elections to operate fairly and democratically, free speech must be in operation. Australia’s Constitution protects citizen free speech, yet the Labor government is attempting to egregiously override it through these new misinformation provisions. Their bill seeks to regulate ‘communications’. Since when did one’s right to communicate (which is a fundamental human right entrenched through several international laws) become subject to government regulation?

The 72-page bill is diabolical, covering censorship provisions from health measures, to ‘Australia’s economy’.

It seeks to not only regulate citizen speech, but effectively coerce digital media platforms into doing the government’s bidding in relation to collecting and retaining records of user data. This is invasive.

In the bill, The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is given ample powers to regulate digital platforms. Digital providers must report to the ACMA on matters regarding misinformation. Daddy government is effectively making social media entities dob on its users over controversial matters the government doesn’t agree with. The medium of material that can be reported is also insanely broad, encompassing much more than text, but music and ‘other sounds’, visual images (animated or otherwise), and other forms of data. So memes and art can be targeted and regulated, if they’re not deemed to be ‘funny’.

Thanks daddy government.

Anything considered to be ‘disinformation’ can be regulated, and that definition is contained within section 15(2) and it is again, extremely broad. Meanings of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are first outlined in Section 13 of the bill, and it includes content that is viewed to be ‘false’ or ‘misleading’ and likely to cause or contribute to harm. Does it sound fair for the government to seek to regulate false material that may or may not contribute to actual real harm?

It is a proposition that is worse than many realise because the government itself cannot tell what is true and false, and what is truly harmful and what is not. We saw it as they faffed about with the pandemic, and as they continue to faff about with a number of issues, including indicating the Digital ID system is ‘likely to make Australia safer’. Whistle-blower reports have indicated that hackers attempt to attack MyGov regularly and that this information could be used to breach bank accounts and other systems Australian citizens use. Digital ID will hardly make Australia safer – it may actually cause increased cyberattacks.

Government is not always up-to-date with the facts. And not everything they say is accurate or ‘the truth.’ Therefore, to let these people dictate what is true or not true is laughably insane. ACMA have just over 500 staff who have not been elected by the public.

Section 13(3) also indicates that when the minister decides on what material will cause harm, they can consider the author of the material, the reach of the dissemination, the circumstances of the posting, and ‘any other relevant matter’.

Well, that’s a bit broad… What’s ‘relevant’ to the minister may be whatever they decide it to be, based on a whim. There are no restrictions to the ambit of power being conferred on the regulating body when they decide what material ‘causes harm’. And what is this nebulous ‘harm term’ according to the bill? Section 14 indicates it can be anything that affects the integrity of the country, or anything that affects ‘public health’ including the ‘efficacy of public health measures’. It can be anything online that denigrates the banking system…

Section (f) indicates you can supposedly cause ‘harm to the economy’ with what you post on social media, even if it’s a piece of music or a picture! Who exactly gets to decide which meme ‘harmed the economy today?’

It is absurd drafting and logic. And the methodology is plain nuts.

Satire is supposedly exempted, but only if it is ‘reasonably’ regarded to be satire. The reason this exemption is a nonsense is because what is ‘funny’ to one person is often not that funny or satirical to the person in which the satire was aimed at. If ACMA and government is the ‘alt media police’ it is likely they won’t find a good deal of content on social media, to be satirical.

Also, Section 11(e) and (f) in conjunction with each other, provides ACMA with powers to regulate systemic issues within digital service providers. In other words, they can dictate social media algorithms. They can suggest which content is shadow-banned, which content is promoted, and which content can be deleted entirely. They can force digital providers to keep and retain records relating to misinformation and they may obtain information and documents from these providers (Section 33). What do they need this information retained for? It looks like the government is bent on surveilling and collecting evidence about its citizens, but for who knows what purposes…

The bill is a tentacular surveillance tool.

If passed, the new laws will do nothing other than promote more censorship of users, shut down important debate, while simultaneously promulgating the government’s own mainstream takes on issues which may be contradictory to the views of actual citizens. And they’ll achieve all this through your own hard-earned income tax.

What a blatant insult to the public they claim to represent.