Update, 2/10/24: Of 25 submissions I could only find one that supported this legislation. The remaining 24 were strongly opposed. Unfortunately, I narrowly missed the dead-line, so my own submission, included below, was not included. (further update, 18 Oct 24: PDF Stop the M.A.D. Bill included.)

I oppose Communications Minister Michelle Rowland's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 and call upon members of both houses to reject it should it ever be put to Parliament.

The bill fails to give clear definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' that it is purportedly intended to combat. According to the bill's definition, given on pages 13 and 14 (add 4 pages for a PDF viewer), 'misinformation' is "reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive," is "reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm" or that its dissemination "involves inauthentic behaviour."

How it is decided that misinformation/disinformation is "reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive" and is "reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm" is unclear.

Were this to become law, someone who published material that he/she believed to be true would still be in breach of that law should those who were to administer the law decide that those honestly held views were 'disinformation.' That person could be subject to prosecution.

The bill's definition of "inauthentic behaviour" is when "the dissemination uses an automated system in a way that is reasonably likely to mislead an end-user about" the identity, purpose or origin of the person disseminating its content, its popularity, the motive of the end-user and the source or origin of the content.

What is unclear to me from the above is whether the 'end-user' is the disseminator of the 'disinformation' or its recipient. I have to assume that the author intended the term to mean the disseminator of the 'disinformation'.

How can a person know for certain that views he/she genuinely holds about any one of a number of current conflicts - Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Ukraine, Somalia, Sudan, Niger, Mali, Venezuela, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and in Australia, will not be deemed 'disinformation' and be prosecuted as a consequence of expressing those views? [1]

That is a denial of free speech as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948 and, as such, should be rejected by both houses of our parliament. Article 19 states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The proposed legislation would also be in breach of the First amendment to the Constitution of the United States constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The fact that Australian law still does not also guarantee free speech is due to oversight or wanton neglect by Australia's elected representatives. Were free speech also a legal right in Australia the legislation could not be enacted.

This should be rectified as soon as possible. A good start would be the scrapping of the "Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024."

On 27 April 1961, then US President John F. Kennedy, before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, said:

'Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed – and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" – but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.'

From this it is clear that were United States President John F. Kennedy around today he would counter actual misinformation with debate rather than censorship. A capable government would similarly face no difficulty countering actual disinformation if that was truly its goal.

Footnote[s]

[1] Emphasised text was previously omitted.