Australian Greens' Dissenting Report

1.1The mass distribution of mis- and disinformation is a growing danger to democracy, public discourse, health and safety both in Australia and around the world and needs to be tackled. Those responsible for the distribution of false or misleading information intended to harm must be held to account, and the platforms whose algorithms allow for its spread must be reined in.

1.2Unfortunately, this bill did not get to the heart of these issues. It had concerning exemptions and broad, ambiguous definitions that would hand over responsibility to social media platforms to determine what is true and what isn’t.

1.3As raised by many notable lawyers and experts in the inquiry, the definition of misinformation was not just confined to matters of fact, but was explicitly said in the explanatory memorandum to include ‘opinion, claims, commentary and invective’ - which raised many questions and concerns in the community about what is true, and who gets to decide that. These broad definitions combined with the co-regulatory framework meant handing significant responsibility to digital platforms, controlled by the likes of Elon Musk, to decide what content fits under these definitions when it comes to misinformation.

1.4Many individuals were concerned about how this would impact their ability to publish their opinions or news commentary online. While individuals would not receive criminal penalties under the legislation, submitters and witnesses did raise concerns that the bill did not do enough to prioritise and tackle the most risky content capable of reaching wide audiences - i.e. the deliberate mass distribution of false and misleading information, over individual posts shared with friends.

1.5The Australian Greens were also concerned from the outset about the carve out for mainstream media. Murdoch’s media empire has a history of peddling mis- and disinformation about climate, public health and elections, and yet they were exempt, according to the Government, as they are already subject to their own editorial standards. However, considering that Youtube has suspended Sky News from its platform for disinformation before while the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) couldn’t take action on that same content playing on TVs, it’s clear that these codes aren’t strong enough to tackle mis- and disinformation in the media, and that this was nothing more than a carve out to appease their mates.

1.6Ultimately, the Greens determined that these concerns raised throughout the inquiry and by community members greatly risked undermining the intent of the legislation. We are glad to see the Australian Government has decided to withdraw their bill in line with calls from the community and the Parliament.

1.7The Government must now turn its mind to comprehensive reforms that put responsibility on digital giants to make their platforms safe for all users, including when it comes to mis and disinformation. Many experts are calling for an EU-style approach that tackles the dangerous algorithms that fuel division and damage democracy and implement critical transparency and privacy measures. Rather than rushing through bills like this or the reckless social media age ban, the Government must show they are serious about online safety, and prioritise legislating a digital duty of care to hold platforms accountable.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young

Deputy Chair