Chapter 6 Trust, resilience and transparency

6.1As discussed in the previous chapter, there was broad support for a range of reforms to strengthen information integrity around climate change and energy.

6.2Many of the measures put forward by stakeholders were aimed at improving the availability and accessibility of accurate, trusted and reliable information about climate change and renewable energy. For many, this involved:

developing trusted, reliable sources of information;

increasing resilience through media, digital and science literacy; and

improving information transparency and accountability.

Developing trusted, reliable information sources

6.3The need for trusted and reliable sources of information to combat mis/disinformation was noted by various inquiry participants. For example, a range of submitters argued that providing current and accurate climate, energy and science information that is easily understood would help address current information vacuums and deficits, making it less likely that misinformation and/or disinformation (mis/disinformation) will spread and take hold.[1]

6.4Similarly, other contributors to the inquiry thought the creation or funding of authoritative, reliable and data-driven information about climate change and energy would help address unverified claims, conspiracies and mis/disinformation.[2]

6.5A number of participants pointed to the role individual agencies and organisations could play as trusted sources of information. For example, the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) referred to the provision of information by 'trusted knowledge institutions'—including government bodies, the free press, universities, and research/information-based organisations—as 'one fundamental part of the answer to the fight against dis and misinformation'.[3]

6.6However, there was also acknowledgement that levels of distrust in government institutions and scientists mean that finding sources of information that are considered unbiased and authoritative can be difficult, meaning people may place greater trust in their personal contacts.[4]

6.7The critical role of trust was also recognised by the RMIT Information Integrity Hub (RMIT Hub), which described current challenges to climate information integrity as part of 'a broader crisis of trust in information, media and democracy'. Accordingly, it suggested that a whole-of-system approach—including fact-based journalism, academic research, community outreach, and media literacy—was needed to ensure access to 'freely available high-quality information about climate change'.[5]

6.8This was reflected in evidence from multiple contributors who urged action to:

improve trust in reliable information sources;

ensure a strong media ecosystem (backed by fact checking initiatives); and

support research into mis/disinformation related to climate change and renewable energy.

6.9Significant evidence was also received in relation to improving the monitoring and regulation of mis/disinformation on digital platforms. This is discussed in Chapter 7.

Improving trust: supporting public institutions and researchers

6.10The importance of trust to countering disinformation was recognised by MsRaaber and her colleagues, who noted that building trust 'requires processes that are transparent and inclusive, while maintaining non-partisan approaches to be effective in increasingly polarised political environments'.[6]

6.11A similar view was expressed by Disinformation in the City (DITC), which noted that 'trust is paramount in countering disinformation' and highlighted the importance of non-partisan responses that do not impinge on democratic rights:

Disinformation drives and thrives on division. Disinformation response must therefore be non-partisan to be effective. Our work does not intend to change beliefs or diminish the rightful and essential democratic expression of dissent.[7]

6.12Indeed, a range of participants highlighted the detrimental impact that silencing dissenting opinions or narrowing the scope of legitimate debate has on public trust in institutions.[8]

6.13To this end, participants made a number of suggestions aimed at improving trust in authoritative sources of information such as government institutions, universities and research and information-based non-government organisations.[9]

6.14In relation to governments generally, DITC argued that the best way to promote trust is 'by displaying competence, consistency, and transparency':

Cities should base their decision-making on reliable and legitimate evidence, be consistent with their intentions in alignment with stated goals, and communicate their actions and the rationale behind them in ways that communities can engage with.[10]

6.15As well as good governance practices, DITC contended that creating trusted information pathways will involve building trust in institutions, people, information and places.[11]

6.16In relation to building trust in government institutions, Mr Andrew Hallam suggested these institutions:

publish easily understood and easily shareable information;

be transparent about the environmental impacts;

be open about the unknowns; and

be a source for artificial intelligence (AI) searches.[12]

6.17Similar views were shared by other submitters. For example, the CPI recommended that the Australian Government provide and promote 'easily accessible statements in areas of contestation in public policy, such as climate change and energy' via its own knowledge institutions. These could include 'the CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation], the Bureau of Meteorology, or the Bureau of Statistics, as part of their public-facing educational functions, or from a panel or group of government appointed "experts" specifically for this purpose'.[13]

6.18Further, the CPI argued that in order for government institutions to be seen as authoritative sources of information, there must be a commitment to supporting their independence and integrity, including:

independent and merit-based appointments;

prohibitions on inappropriate executive direction;

adequate and secure funding;

an ability to speak and report publicly; and

a respect for their independence and authority, and protection from inappropriate political attacks.[14]

6.19A similar view was expressed by the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century (ARC 21C), which noted that while public trust in institutions such as universities, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology is 'generally moderate to high', it 'needs to be maintained via apolitical bipartisan support and apolitical funding'.[15]

6.20Accordingly, the ARC 21C recommended 'safeguards against political interference in the resources, operations and outputs of Australian scientific (Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO) and independent operational agencies, such as the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)'.[16]

6.21The CPI also highlighted the importance of the 'platforming of trustworthy and compelling voices that are not ordinarily heard by government and the public'. It submitted this could be done by creating 'an independent office … responsible for overseeing and championing public engagement in government'.[17]

6.22To this end, the CPI and others also suggested that the Australian Government 'provide opportunities for Australians to debate controversial policy issues through processes that are transparent, informed and have high public trust and legitimacy'. It provided the example of Citizens Review Panels, where randomly selected citizens are brought together to study and deliberate on issues in a structured way, with the results made available to the public.[18]

6.23Further, the CPI recommended that the Australian Government commit to 'the proper resourcing and independence of universities' and supporting 'the independence and sustainability of the [non-government organisation] NGO sector'.[19]

6.24More broadly, the ANU Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions (ANU ICEDS) stressed the need for trusted institutions, such as universities, to communicate with transparency and integrity, including being open about the limits of current knowledge and expertise.[20] ANU ICEDS expanded on the importance of 'intellectual humility' to engendering trust:

Enough evidence now shows the importance of 'intellectual humility' or acknowledging limitations to knowledge as being a trait that underpins credibility of and trust in science communicators. People who view scientists as intellectually humble tend to have more faith in science and scientists across a variety of disciplines, including climate change.[21]

Ensuring a strong media ecosystem

6.25Various contributors stressed the importance of a strong media ecosystem to the health of Australia's democratic system. For example, the CPI described how the media 'facilitates democratic accountability' and balances out 'the control the government could otherwise exercise over the dissemination of information and opinions'. It also provides access to 'authoritative information' via reporting on political and policy issues and 'helps to ascertain the underlying facts that ground public debate'.[22]

6.26More particularly, submitters and witnesses suggested that ensuring a strong, independent media—especially public media—was a protective mechanism against mis/disinformation.[23]

6.27The Australian Associated Press (AAP) described the importance of primary source journalism to safeguarding information integrity:

Any effective strategy for safeguarding information integrity must include original, verifiable reporting. Technology cannot replace 'shoe-leather journalism'—the practice of journalists directly gathering information from primary sources. Attending, for example, parliamentary sittings, court cases and press conferences, or picking up the phone to interview subjects identified as relevant and qualified to comment, is essential journalistic rigour, and cannot be replicated by AI.[24]

6.28In addition, AAP contended that the continued reduction in 'news gathering resources', particularly in regional and rural areas, 'creates an information vacuum that can be easily filled by misinformation'.[25]

6.29A similar point was raised by Dr Sora Park, Director of the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra, who described the information gap in regional communities as 'so bad that some people are stepping up to fill the space':

They see their community. They know people are in need of information, so they will curate news themselves and deliver it to the community, which is great, but that's not high quality journalism. They're not trained, and they do it in their own time. We can't rely on those measures anymore, so we really need to support the local news, especially in regional areas.[26]

6.30This point was underscored by the Local & Independent News Association (LINA), which noted that local news publishers are highly trusted by their communities, with audiences five times more likely to visit a local news website than Google or Facebook for local news, and almost 10 times more likely to visit a local newspaper website than a local council website for news and information.[27] LINA pointed to the Illawarra Flame as an example of the critical role played by local and independent news organisations in providing accurate information and countering mis/disinformation within local communities (seeBox 6.1).

6.31Accordingly, the committee heard multiple calls for action to support and strengthen public interest journalism, particularly at local levels 'where media diversity has been eroded'.[29] For example, the CPI proposed establishment of an independent trust to support emerging news ventures, particularly in regional areas.[30]

6.32Similarly, LINA suggested introducing a 'minimum government advertising spend specifically directed to locally produced and distributed news publications'. LINA also proposed that the Australian Government support development of a not-for-profit news sector by enabling news organisations that produce public interest journalism to be eligible for deductible gift recipient status.[31]

6.33Ms Margaret Lopez of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts told the committee about a range of initiatives under the Australian Government's News Media Assistance Program, which aim to strengthen media diversity and support regional and independent news publishers:

The government has established the News Media Assistance Program, which recognises local media as critical to the health of democracy, social cohesion and informing communities. As part of that program, the government is providing $99.1 million over three years from 2025–26 in grants for the news sector. It's also providing $33 million over three years from 2025–26 to support the sustainability of the Australian Associated Press, who provide a newswire service. The government also provided $15million in 2024–25 for the News Media Relief Program, which provided grants to regional, independent and suburban multicultural and First Nations news publishers creating online news content.

The government has also committed $10.5 million over four years from 2024–25 for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to implement the Media Diversity Measurement Framework. There's also a mandated minimum commitment for two years from 2025–26 for regional newspaper advertising to support regional news publishers. In terms of additional measures, the government is also developing Australia's first national media literacy strategy, and that will be co-designed in partnership with media literacy research and education sectors and communities.[32]

6.34The need for more support for the news industry more broadly was also raised by the News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, which discussed the protective impacts of a diverse and 'flourishing news and information ecosystem' with a range of trusted sources that people can go to.[33]

6.35To this end, there was also support for more funding for trusted public broadcasters such as the ABC and SBS,[34] including more coverage of climate science, energy solutions and policy debates, although some submitters called for greater transparency from the broadcasters to address potential partiality.[35]

6.36Funding and support to provide training on climate change for journalists and media organisations, as well as grant and other funding to support local, public-interest journalism and factual climate change coverage were also proposed as possible solutions,[36] although as explained in a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, supporting local journalism is a longer term structural change:

… outsized attention goes to the most tangible, immediate, and visible actions [like the disruption of inauthentic networks] … Yet such actions, while helpful, usually have narrow impacts. In comparison, more ambitious but slower-moving efforts to revive local journalism and improve media literacy (among other possibilities) receive less notice despite encouraging research on their prospects.[37]

6.37In addition to greater support for public interest journalism, the committee also heard calls for structural and regulatory changes to ensure the robustness of the sector. These included the establishment of an independent media regulator[38] and asking the Australian Media and Communications Authority to review its regulation of campaign journalism from a public interest point of view:

Just as news outlets clearly distinguish between commentary and factual or hard news, they should declare cases of campaign journalism, so that audiences can evaluate whether such campaigns are in the public interest.[39]

6.38Climate Communications Australia additionally thought that the Press Council of Australia should be 'co-funded' to ensure 'independent expert representatives from academia and public interest organisations, rather than being self‑regulated'.[40]

6.39Further, in recognition of the role of traditional media in amplifying mis/disinformation appearing on social media, submitters such as the UTS Centre for Media Transition thought that applying a cross-platform media standards scheme that applies across print, broadcast and online news would help build integrity and accuracy into news reporting.[41]

6.40Currently, there are a range of voluntary and other media standards, with some news sources not regulated at all.[42] In line with this, the QUT Digital Media Research Centre (QUT DMRC) considered existing regulations 'need to be re-examined to determine if they are effective and proportionate'.[43]

Fact checking

6.41Various approaches to fact checking by tech and online platforms are covered in more detail in Appendix 3.

6.42Alongside action to promote a strong media ecosystem, various inquiry participants also advocated for greater support for fact checking services. While not seen as a sufficient stand-alone solution, they were seen by numerous submitters as a useful tool in the arsenal to counter mis/disinformation.[44]

6.43The RMIT Hub explained the efficacy and benefits of fact checking services:

A significant body of academic research suggests that fact checking can be effective in countering false information by correcting beliefs, although it has its limitations. More broadly, as a form of public interest journalism, fact checking can hold individuals who spread false information accountable and help the public understand complex ideas.[45]

6.44This appeared to be reflected in a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which observed that 'policymakers can have some confidence that fact checking is worthy of investment' but that its efficacy 'can vary a lot depending on a host of highly contextual, poorly understood factors'.[46]

6.45Dr Sora Park, Director of the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra, highlighted the importance of fact-checking websites for both individual news consumers and social media platforms:

… fact checking plays an important role in people's information environment. Not everyone will notice it. Not everyone will go to a fact-checking website. We do know that people's awareness of fact checked material on social media is very low. But, having said that, it's still very important for whenever I find something that's dubious that I do know where to go to. I think that's really important for Australians—if there is a post of which I don't know the veracity, then I know I can go to this fact-checking website. So, in that sense, I think fact checking is very important, and it's important for social media companies to incorporate that on their platform so people can easily find ways to verify information when they need it. Not everyone will, but it's an option.[47]

6.46However, the RMIT Hub pointed out that resources to support information integrity are declining, with only one of Australia's three previous fact checkers still operating, and digital platform fact checking services which identify and rate misleading content being axed or facing significant cuts. There have also been reports of fact checkers facing increasing threats, abuse, and political and legal attacks.[48]

6.47Dr Rys Farthing of the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra also warned that small, underfunded fact-checking services were being relied on as a 'smokescreen' by digital platforms:

Making me even more angry is that these platforms are reliant on these tiny third-party fact checkers. They turn up at committees like this and talk about this, saying, 'This is our process,' but they don't fund them to meet the scale of the problem. Indeed, we're seeing a global trend where third-party fact checkers are losing financial support from platforms. We've got these tiny little organisations under financial stress being asked to function as the smokescreen for these billion-dollar organisations. The whole system seems a little bit upside down to me.[49]

6.48Unsurprisingly, various submitters, including the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society (ADM+S), called for more financial support for independent fact checking organisations.[50]

6.49However, there was not universal support for fact checkers. Mr Murray Hogarth suggested they are reactive and of limited effectiveness,[51] and the Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals contended that mainstream media fact checkers are arrogant.[52]

6.50In addition to dedicated fact-checking services, the committee is aware of initiatives such as the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), which may provide a model for collaborative media efforts to tackle mis/disinformation (see Box 6.2). Of particular relevance to fact-checking efforts, the TNI includes 'targeted, expert training workshops on a variety of digital tools to help journalists as they seek to continue day-to-day verification and fact checking'.[53]

Supporting research into threats to climate information integrity

6.51Support for independent and reliable research and access to data were viewed by many submitters as another key tool in combatting climate change and energy mis/disinformation.

6.52Submitters, including the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), argued that more independent research into the prevalence and impacts of climate change and energy mis/disinformation needs to be supported.[56]

6.53The Climate Social Science Network suggested that 'a public misinformation monitoring program' to monitor trends across platforms would make it harder for misinformation to spread and thrive.[57]

6.54The ADM+S highlighted 'the critical role of independent, researcher-led monitoring in ensuring observability' of activity on digital platforms. To this end, the ADM+S and other stakeholders recommended greater investment in research infrastructure, such as the Australian Internet Observatory, to track hidden digital influence, ensure that academia and regulatory agencies can build their capabilities and deliver meaningful research, safeguard monitoring activities and appropriately scrutinise digital platforms.[58]

6.55However, the ADM+S also pointed to the need for public agencies to 'be resourced to develop digital monitoring capacities, working in durable partnership with academia'. It suggested this could be funded via a cost-sharing arrangement with large online platforms, given the revenue they derive from digital advertising.[59]

6.56At the same time, several submitters, such as News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra and 89 Degrees East, argued for research into the effectiveness of counter mis/disinformation strategies—such as pre-bunking, labelling of mis/disinformation, and debunking—to better understand how well these approaches are working and to inform public institutions how best to 'counter … [mis/disinformation] impacts in their engagement and communication with the public'.[60]

6.57To this end, the committee is aware that in 2022, member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) established a Hub on Information Integrity 'to facilitate the analysis of public governance measures aimed at preserving and strengthening the integrity of a rapidly evolving information space'. The Hub is a peer-learning platform, which countries can use to exchange data and best practices.[61]

6.58There were also arguments for better funding for, and access to, environment, climate change and weather research and data, as matters of national security and resilience.[62]

6.59Environmental groups advocated for better access to reliable data about biodiversity, ecosystems, developments, land clearing and related matters, explaining that the true extent of impacts of energy projects is 'routinely downplayed or omitted'.[63]

6.60The need for greater access to digital platform data was also raised by various participants and is addressed in Chapter 7.

Increasing resilience through media, digital and science literacy

6.61The importance of media literacy in addressing mis/disinformation, was highlighted by numerous contributors to the inquiry.[64] For example, AAP stated that media literacy—which encourages 'care and critical thinking in relation to online content, as well as practical tips for verifying information'—is critical to 'supporting Australian people to independently identify misinformation and avoid it'. To this end, AAP argued that 'ensuring free, practical media literacy education is available for audiences on their preferred platforms is a crucial protective step against misinformation of all varieties'.[65]

6.62In addition, participants such as the News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra pointed to the positive relationship between media literacy and civic engagement and noted that those with high confidence in their media abilities are more likely to engage in more civic activities.[66]

6.63Alongside media literacy, submitters like the CPI also referred to the need to develop digital literacy skills, that is, skills that allow people to navigate technical and online platforms to access information, as well as 'evaluate the effect of algorithms and targeted disinformation on these platforms'.[67]

6.64In relation to climate science more specifically, stakeholders such as the ARC21C, Mr Murray Hogarth, and the UTS Centre for Media Transition wanted to see more emphasis on climate science literacy—including energy and energy transition literacy[68]—with the latter explaining:

Importantly, the required focus of education efforts goes well beyond what is commonly meant by 'media literacy' (education on critically navigating and understanding the media) towards increasing public understanding of climate science, and of science more generally.[69]

6.65Contributors largely agreed that mandatory science, media and digital literacy education, as well as development of critical thinking skills across the population, would help empower individuals to identify and respond to mis/disinformation and build democratic resilience.[70] According to the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE), education is 'one of the most important enablers of information integrity about climate science'.[71]

6.66The importance of media and science literacy has also been recognised internationally, with a range of countries and organisations implementing media literacy projects to address mis/disinformation (see Box 6.3).

6.67In relation to climate mis/disinformation specifically, the UK Met Office has developed a misinformation toolkit (see Box 6.4), while UNESCO has launched a free online course to address climate disinformation through media and information literacy. The course aims to:

enhance understanding of climate change and the importance of identifying and trusting evidence-based data and scientific facts;

build critical thinking and fact checking skills to evaluate climate information across diverse information providers; and

encourage citizens to become media and information literate and to advocate for informed, positive climate action.[77]

6.68Unsurprisingly, many actions recommended by participants to address climate change and energy mis/disinformation revolved around measures to build resilience via media, digital and science literacy education—particularly for potentially vulnerable groups.[81]

6.69To this end, the committee is aware that the Australian Government has committed to developing a National Media Literacy Strategy (Strategy), with a tender released in February 2026 to find a co-design partner. The Strategy will provide 'a clear and coordinated national approach to help Australians build the skills needed to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the digital world', including:

… the ability to spot false or misleading content being spread on social media, understand the intent behind media messages and think critically about the information they see every day.[82]

6.70The Strategy was welcomed by groups such as the CPI, the Australia Media Literacy Alliance and the QUT DMRC.[83] It is expected to be completed in 2028 and will be developed in consultation with academic, industry and community stakeholders. It will also consider the impacts of emerging technologies such as AI, as well as identify vulnerable groups most in need of targeted media literacy initiatives.[84]

6.71In addition, the CPI suggested that the government augment media and digital literacy education with online tools, such as the AI 'Claim Buster', to help people judge the accuracy of information and legitimacy of sources.[85]

6.72While not as widely discussed, a number of submissions also suggested that better civics education and community-building initiatives—including in schools—could improve engagement and build trust and resilience in communities, especially in the face of mis/disinformation.[86] The importance of addressing mis/disinformation to improve social cohesion and inform civic engagement in democratic processes was also noted.[87]

6.73A multi-pronged education approach was suggested, with a particular emphasis on policy makers and young people in schools. Better informed policy makers, it was argued by Doctors for the Environment Australia, 'helps ensure that those responsible for legislation and civic leadership are better equipped to respond effectively'.[88]

6.74For this reason, many of the suggested approaches to improving media, digital and scientific literacy involved education initiatives in schools and the broader community, as well as a range of pre-bunking and debunking interventions. These are discussed below.

Education initiatives

6.75Multiple participants proposed an increased focus on media, digital and science literacy in schools.[89] For example, the ANU ICEDS described current shortcomings in school-based climate education and media literacy and recommended:

Funding digital and media literacy education training initiatives and climate change education that specifically teach students and youth how to evaluate the credibility of information they encounter and how people's biases may affect their judgements.[90]

6.76Shortcomings in climate and media literacy education were also identified by Dr Mel Fitzpatrick, who argued that curriculum reform was needed to prevent young Australians from entering adulthood 'ill-prepared to navigate contested information landscapes, leaving both public debate and policy outcomes more vulnerable to manipulation by well-resourced disinformation campaigns'.[91]

6.77To this end, the ARC 21C noted that some elements are already embedded in the curriculum and could be 'adapted or expanded upon to address improved science media literacy and critical thinking'.[92]

6.78Mr Andrew Beaton, of the Australian Democracy Network (ADN), went further and advocated for 'a national media literacy curriculum'. In doing so, Mr Beaton suggested Australia could emulate the Finnish approach to media literacy, which 'treats information evaluation as essential to national security and democracy' and embeds it across the curriculum from an early age.[93]

6.79In addition to general media literacy, several participants singled out AI as a particular area of focus for education efforts. For example, Dr Sora Park, Director of the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra, warned that the conversational style of AI makes it seem 'trustworthy when it's actually not, so there's a real danger there that people are not really equipped to use these tools without education'.[94]

6.80Mr Beaton told the committee that AI was a recent focus of Finnish education efforts and one that could be introduced easily in Australia:

… I was looking at what the Finns are up to. Just this year they're kicking off a similar program around AI. They're looking at AI literacy as well. They're looking at 'slopaganda', as it was referred to in this committee. They're looking at AI deepfakes and they're rolling that out across their education curriculum, which is something that our government could do from a regulatory perspective and it could be quite an easy first step.[95]

6.81Dr John Cook, of the University of Melbourne, described the educative effect of tackling misinformation head-on:

… one of the most powerful ways of teaching science is an approach called misconception based learning, which is to teach science by examining the misconceptions about science. So, rather than trying to censor, you can actually tackle misinformation and the arguments that try to cast doubt on the facts as a way to teach the facts. That's actually one of the most powerful ways of teaching science. So I think that, if you want to take a glass-half-full approach, misinformation can be an educational opportunity.[96]

6.82The UTS Centre for Media Transition and other submitters suggested that young people supported this emphasis:

Young people view social media and online information environments as a key arena for climate action but stress the need for stronger support from schools, scientific institutions, health organisations, and youth-led initiatives to navigate misleading information.[97]

6.83While supporting the expansion of media literacy and critical thinking in the school curriculum, Mr Andrew Hallam described education on media literacy for adults as 'more urgent'.[98]

6.84Dr Sora Park expressed a similar view, telling the committee that while there was 'room for improvement' in education for young people, schools were already 'slowly adopting media literacy education'. Instead, Dr Park argued that the 'big gap' was in adult education. As with the ADN, Dr Park described Finland as an example of a country providing 'media literacy education across the board':

They start media literacy education from early childhood, and they have a lifelong learning framework that adults can always come back to community organisations or cultural institutions to learn about and update. The important thing about media literacy is that you need to keep updating it. It's not a one-off thing. You can't get educated and get a degree and have that be it. Because technology is changing all the time, everyone needs to update their skills. So they have this really good structure, from early childhood to older adulthood, to get access to media literacy education. Even in schools, it's embedded in all the subjects. It's not a separate subject. It's included in science, maths and English, which I think is a really good framework.[99]

6.85The need for lifelong learning was also recognised by the ADN, as well as the QUT DMRC, which recommended:

investing in high quality media literacy education and developing world class programs and resources and awareness-raising campaigns for lifelong learning; and

developing evidence-based resources for media literacy education in schools that are aligned to the Australian Curriculum and able to be adapted easily to different classroom contexts.[100]

6.86The QUT DMRC also pointed to the findings of an ARC Linkage Project Addressing Misinformation with Media Literacy Through Cultural Institutions, which found that a broad-based approach should be taken to media literacy education:

Rather than narrowly focussed skills-based interventions or training in out-of-context fact-checking, media literacy education needs to connect with people's everyday lives, their interests, their cultural backgrounds and their day-to-day needs.[101]

Pre-bunking interventions

6.87As noted by Mr Andrew Hallam, 'the spread of disinformation and misinformation can be likened to the spread of a virus. By taking early steps to reduce the impact of false information (inoculation) its spread can be reduced'.[102]

6.88In line with this, there was some agreement about the need to inoculate individuals and communities from mis/disinformation through early education or pre-emptively educating ('pre-bunking') people about climate change and energy and related mis/disinformation.[103]

6.89The IPIE explained that this should include 'fact-based inoculation', such as scientific information which helps people identify and reject false claims, as well as 'technique-based inoculation' which helps people identify rhetorical strategies and manipulative arguments often used in misinformation.[104] The AHRC and others thought that this education should also include helping people to understand how their personal data is used in algorithmic content curation, and can make it difficult to escape echo chambers of mis/disinformation, as well as how AI is being integrated into people's lives.[105]

6.90According to the University of Melbourne, pre-bunking (combined with debunking) is one of two steps that 'are considered essential to counter climate misinformation', with 'technique-based inoculation' proving effective in building resilience and able to be delivered in multiple formats:

Technique-based inoculation—the explicit teaching of common fallacies, manipulation tactics, and rhetorical red flags—has been proven by research to be one of the most versatile and generalisable interventions to counter climate misinformation, as it builds durable, transferable resistance across topics and platforms. It can be delivered through curricula, public-communication campaigns, short prebunking videos, and interactive games (e.g., the Cranky Uncle critical thinking game), and it scales beyond the "whack-a-mole" of individual fact-checks. Pairing inoculation with social-norm cues ("most people avoid sharing falsehoods") and light friction (brief prompts to consider accuracy before posting) measurably reduces sharing of false content.[106]

6.91A similar view was expressed by the Tasmanian Climate Collective, which described pre-bunking as being 'about training critical thinking to immunise us against how information can be manipulated'.[107]

6.92Teaching people to recognise manipulation techniques prior to exposure was also supported by Ms Raaber and colleagues, Friends of the Earth, the ANU Climate Social Science Network.[108]

6.93In addition, Coronium Pty Ltd thought that the government should 'fund public-facing, independent science communication bodies to proactively debunk misinformation'.[109]

6.94The IPIE discussed pre-bunking in its review of Information Integrity about Climate Science, highlighting that a range of studies have found this to be a durable and 'effective approach to countering misleading information', although it may be less effective in relation to partisan or polarising issues such as climate change.[110]

6.95To this end, Mr Alex Murray of Climate Action Against Disinformation highlighted the potential to learn from global experiences in relation to the effectiveness of actions such as pre-bunking.[111]

Debunking interventions

6.96In addition to supporting pre-bunking activities, submitters such as the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner argued there is a need 'to provide fact-based counter-information and counter-narratives as part of efforts to retroactively debunk existing disinformation'.[112]

6.97As noted in the previous section, debunking was also supported by the University of Melbourne, which saw it as one of two essential steps to countering misinformation (along with pre-bunking).[113]

6.98Those who supported debunking efforts proposed a range of possible actions. For example, Climate Action Burwood/Canada Bay proposed that the Climate Change Authority or another independent body be tasked with 'creating a website that debunks the full range of misinformation surrounding global warming, renewable energy and electric vehicles'. The group suggested that the independent body could also have a role in investigating mis/disinformation reported by the public, as well as providing media outlets with accurate information.[114]

6.99Future Smart Strategies advocated for a '"truth over noise" filter in all government climate and energy communications', which would involve 'stringent fact-checking, transparent source auditing, and proactive efforts to debunk zombie data'. It defined zombie data as 'misinformation that has been repeatedly debunked but continues to circulate' and which 'poses a critical barrier to public trust and informed policy debate'.[115]

6.100The committee is also aware of international efforts to debunk mis/disinformation (see Box 6.5).

6.101That said, some submitters who supported debunking activities underscored the need for an evidence-based approach to efforts. For example, to be effective, the UoM argued that debunking efforts needed research-based 'Australian culturally aligned messaging that resonates with local audiences and values'. It suggested that key strategies might include:

… climate science and misinformation workshops with journalists and media producers, including influencers, content creators, and advocacy groups, to mobilise key actors in digital communication for educational purposes.[120]

6.102Further, Nelli Stevenson cautioned that 'in persuasive communications theory it is widely understood that repeating a myth reinforces it'. This means that efforts to debunk mis/disinformation that lead to its increased repetition—often by the media without the clarifying context—'can actually increase the likelihood that it will be later believed'.[121]

Improving information transparency and accountability

6.103Improving information transparency and accountability were key themes of the inquiry. Much as sunlight disinfects what it shines on, substantial evidence received during the inquiry recommended improving information transparency and integrity to counteract mis/disinformation about climate change and energy.

6.104At the same time, many submitters and witnesses thought that the government could do more to improve governance and regulation—through enforcement, more accountable regulators, and reforms to legislation, regulations, standards and guidance.

6.105The remainder of this section explores participants views and recommendations in relation to:

improving information transparency; and

enhancing regulator accountability, support and reform.

Improving information transparency

6.106Participants made a number of recommendations aimed at improving information transparency. Many of these involved potential reforms to regulation around donations and lobbyists, grant eligibility and charity status, and advertising and sponsorship.

Donations and lobbyists

6.107Given the role of politics and politicians in the spread of climate change and energy mis/disinformation, there were widespread calls from across the spectrum of opinion for more transparent political donations, and information about lobbyists and vested interests.

6.108ADM+S highlighted the problems:

While electoral law requires disclosure and authorisation of political advertising, these provisions are narrow, inconsistently enforced, and poorly adapted to the realities of digital campaigning. The result is an ecosystem in which well-financed third-party organisations can appear to be grassroots groups, spread misleading or decontextualised claims, and mask their true funding sources.[122]

6.109Dr Lacy-Nichols of the University of Melbourne elaborated during a hearing, telling the committee:

There are some jurisdictions—Ireland and Scotland—where one of the requirements is that, if you are a third-party organisation, an industry association or a peak body, you to have disclose who all your members and funders are as part of that ... you need to have full transparency of where the money is coming from.[123]

6.110Along with other participants, the Climate Council of Australia supported reforms including 'lower disclosure thresholds, caps on expenditure and real‑time disclosure, so Australians can clearly see who is funding campaigns'.[124] There were also calls for the removal of certain exemptions from reporting for politically engaged organisations, where political expenditure is funded by foreign donors.[125]

6.111Broader demands for financial transparency (including for donations) across industries—including think tanks and advocacy groups and submitters to government on project approvals—were also made. The IPIE highlighted that 'climate misinformation is often financed through concealed networks that distort public debate by masking the economic interests behind climate communications' and that better transparency would bring those connections to light.[126]

6.112The ADM+S noted the disproportionate impact of certain lobby groups on media narratives and policy debates, noting 'these groups blur the line between legitimate community advocacy and covert lobbying, while injecting highly polarising, misleading claims about renewables, nuclear, and fossil gas into the national debate'.[127]

6.113However, the Climate Council of Australia warned of unintended consequences, explaining recent amendments which 'prevent untied or general donations for use on electoral advocacy' will 'severely limit the ability of not-for-profits … to advocate and counter the spread of mis- and disinformation during election periods'.[128]

6.114Some submitters, including Martin O'Dea and Rainforest Reserves Australia, recommended the creation of a lobbyist register, including information about who funds them, the publication and filing of disclosure reports, and the transparency of ministerial and senior officials' diaries so that the public can see who they are meeting with and being influenced by.[129] Mr Jack Herring from InfluenceMap told the committee:

There's a clear opportunity for Australia to seize the opportunity and mandate this [advocacy, lobbying positions and engagements with government] under Australia's climate related financial disclosure regimes. Doing so would position Australia as a global leader in climate information disclosure, restoring trust, transparency and effectiveness …[130]

6.115Other participants pointed to the need for greater transparency around foreign donations. For example, Mr Gerard Holland of the Page Research Centre spoke about the lack of a register 'for the foreign money coming into the debate'.[131]

6.116To better counter foreign influence, CoalAustralia also recommended greater transparency of foreign donations to advocacy and activist organisations. This measure extended to an initial audit then annual reporting to Parliament by electoral, intelligence, security and defence agencies on Australia's energy security and sovereignty and related mis/disinformation, especially where funding is not transparent. CoalAustralia argued that this would also help build community awareness and vigilance against 'manipulative and deceptive campaign tactics'.[132]

6.117To this end, Dr Lacy-Nichols recommended changes to funding declarations to 'improve political transparency to provide greater insights into some of those flows of money, whether or not they're from international or domestic companies'.[133]

Reforms to grant eligibility and charity status

6.118In addition to greater transparency around sources of funding, the committee heard evidence from some submitters about the need to review eligibility for government grants and the appropriateness of charity status for organisations that may be involved in the promulgation of disinformation and/or that are not transparent about their funding sources.

6.119To guard against the influence of foreign donations and deceptive campaigning in environmental debates and activism CoalAustralia, recommended grant eligibility and conditions be tightened go allow for the denial or termination of grants where the receiver has engaged in deceptive campaigning, failed to disclose foreign donations or 'deliberately misled a Commonwealth approval agency or Court'.[134]

6.120Likewise, Coal Australia suggested that charity status be refused or terminated for organisations which have engaged in deceptive campaigning, failed to disclose foreign donations, or 'made representations to Commonwealth approval agencies or the courts' that have been dishonest or relied on evidence that is fabricated, distorted or manipulated. CoalAustralia thought that this approach would help restore confidence in the charity sector, rather than it being used to perpetrate partisan political activism.[135]

6.121More specifically, Dr Jeremy Walker urged the Australian Government to review whether 'the present tax-exempt, tax-deductible status of the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre of Independent Studies and other Atlas member organisations in Australia as is in conformity with the law'.[136]

Advertising and sponsorship

6.122Participants' recommendations around reforms to advertising covered bans on certain types of advertising and sponsorship as well as the introduction of truth in political advertising laws.

Banning fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship

6.123Various stakeholders, including the Climate Social Science Network described how corporates or industry sectors use educational programs and 'promotional campaigns to enhance their cultural legitimacy and thus defuse potential regulations'. It cited corporations including Woodside, Santos and Origin as sponsors of academic programs, sports, arts and public events.[137]

6.124According to some submitters, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Ms Elisa Morgera, banning fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship would help to address climate mis/disinformation.[138]

6.125Dr Jeremy Walker made a similar recommendation and proposed that fossil fuel corporations and investors be prohibited from 'advertising owning media corporations and assets, sponsoring sporting teams, museums, schools and universities, and from funding any government scientific or research institution'.[139]

6.126Comms Declare described bans on advertising and sponsorship as 'a logical and inevitable step to change the climate narrative and stop the main source of funding and dissemination of dangerous climate dis- and misinformation'. It also noted that, so far, 'more than 40 jurisdictions globally have supported fossil fuel marketing restrictions, including 18 Australian councils and the Australian Capital Territory'.[140]

Truth in political advertising laws

6.127While Australia has Australian Consumer Law to regulate truth in product and services advertising, there is no similar requirement for truth in political advertising at the national level, especially around election time.[141] Indeed, MrAndrew Beaton of the Australian Democracy Network put plainly that it is currently 'legal to lie in a political ad' at the federal level.[142]

6.128In order to combat mis/disinformation, submitters recommended truth in political advertising and election material, most especially during election periods.[143] Friends of the Earth was one supporter of this measure, writing:

… over the years political footballing and false or misleading information being shared by politicians this trust has been eroded. The evidence shared in this submission illustrates how weak political advertising laws have enabled disinformation to spread through political advertising, particularly within election periods.[144]

6.129'A national regime of truth in political advertising laws' was also supported by ADM+S, which noted that only South Australia (SA) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) currently have truth in political advertising provisions.[145]

6.130Mr Beaton cited the SA and ACT laws as possible models to for a national truth in political advertising laws but emphasised that this would target paid advertisements only, not 'expressions of opinion':

It would be our opinion to copy and paste, almost, from the South Australian legislation. It should be an offence to authorise or cause to be published electoral advertisements that are materially inaccurate or misleading. I want to be clear, there, around the word 'advertisement'. We're not talking about expressions of opinion; we're not talking about people having a yarn on Facebook. We're talking about paid ads in reference to verifiable statements of fact. … These ads that we saw with AI slop dead whales on wind farms would be covered by truth-in-political-advertising legislation because these are paid ads targeting political discourse. That would be a key first step, from our perspective.[146]

6.131While the ADM+S argued that a national regime was needed to 'provide consistency and credibility', it also suggested that the regime extend beyond political parties and election periods:

… consideration should be given to whether such a regime could operate and be enforced year-round, not just during elections. Scope for such laws should be examined to ensure these capture advertising not only of registered political parties, but also of significant third parties (e.g. unions, associations, resident and business groups).[147]

6.132There appeared to be wide support for such measures, given recent polling from the Australia Institute showed that 89 per cent of Australians supported the introduction of truth in political advertising laws.[148]

6.133It also reflects reforms by the European Commission, which has introduced a new regulation on transparency in political advertising, which requires political advertisements to be labelled as such and include information on who paid for them, how much was paid, which elections, referendums or regulatory processes they are linked to, and whether any targeting techniques were used.[149]

6.134In addition to truth in political advertising laws, the University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre also recommended expanding the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to target astroturfing 'without overly restraining other public dialogue on an issue'. It suggested this could be done by adopting the ACT's definition of 'electoral matter', along with 'stronger requirements for who is a disclosure entity'. According to the UQ Pro Bono Centre, this would mean:

… more media produced by astroturfing campaigns will be required to indicate the location and identity of its authorising entity. This would highlight the advertisement's political intentions and provide important information to the media and policymakers.[150]

6.135Some submitters called for truth in advertising more broadly—not just for political advertising. These submitters thought that think tanks and lobby groups should be subject to similar truthfulness requirements, given the highly political nature of advocacy work and the significant influence these groups have over environmental and climate policy.[151]

6.136Dr Adam Lucas explained in more detail that this should include requirements to disclose data sources and assumptions on advertisement funding labels (to prevent corporate-funded campaigns masquerading as grassroots movements), prompt correction/removal powers for regulators, and civil penalties for repeated breaches of advertising laws.[152]

6.137Of course, such a measure would require independent arbitration of what is and is not mis/disinformation. Dr Lucas recommended the establishment of a 'Parliamentary Commissioner for Climate Information Integrity with powers to investigate systemic disinformation, issue findings and corrections, support public agencies in risk-communication, and coordinate across regulators'.[153]

6.138However, some submitters felt that 'much misinformation and disinformation is being generated by government bodies and leadership itself'.[154] Therefore, identifying government as a universally independent and unbiased source of information on matters such as climate and energy integrity could be problematic. When asked about whether government should play a role in determining climate misinformation or disinformation, the Australian Communications and Media Authority admitted:

There is a good argument that governments should stand back from these processes in relation to freedom of expression and information. I think that the platforms are probably in the best position to make those assessments themselves, whether they have good processes and procedures to make those assessments.[155]

6.139WePlanet Australia also expressed its concerns, stating:

… we are deeply concerned about the ability of governments to be the arbiter of truth. There is clear current and historical evidence of how this allows authoritarian governments to shut down political debate and distort democracy, leading to worse outcomes than the legislation was aiming to prevent.[156]

Regulator accountability, support and reform

6.140As noted by the UoM, Australia's regulatory response to climate and energy mis/disinformation relies on non-climate specific regulation, as well as voluntary codes and self-regulatory approaches. It also explained that there are 'extensive prohibitions on misleading and deceptive conduct via the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Australian Consumer Law and Corporations Act 2001', which have been used to take action on greenwashing.[157]

6.141According to some submitters, agencies such as the Australian Electoral Commission, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and Australian Energy Market Operator, need to better investigate and enforce existing regulations relating to corporate reporting, astroturfing and greenwashing constituting climate change and energy mis/disinformation.[158]

6.142The QUT DMRC explained how the ACCC has already prosecuted false environmental claims under Australian Consumer Law. It was suggested that this is 'a framework that could be examined to determine its ability to cover covertly orchestrated "astroturf" campaigns', to protect genuine community groups and avoid misleading claims.[159]

6.143Likewise, the Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) noted that ASIC had successfully prosecuted Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Ltd for 'making misleading statements about the sustainable nature and characteristics of some of its superannuation investment options'. CSSN suggested that increasing the powers and resources of ASIC and the ACCC to 'regulate corporate miscommunication and fraud in relation to investors and consumers' was an important and urgent task:

These tasks are especially urgent given that emissions intensive corporations in particular, often engage in actions promoting individual pro-environmental behaviours even as they resist more systemic forms of change in, for example, the law or financial regulations.[160]

6.144Stronger enforcement powers for ASIC and the ACCC were also supported by the Geelong Sustainability Group in order to 'stop misleading climate/energy claims in advertising, corporate reports and lobbying.[161]

6.145Further, the National Environmental Law Association proposed that ASIC and the ACCC should have a stronger role in 'providing robust guidance in relation to environmental- or sustainability-related claims made in relation to products and services'.[162]

6.146Dr Matthew Rimmer suggested corporations law could be 'deployed to address the problem of astroturfing' but also argued that better corporate disclosure rules would provide greater transparency for investors.[163]

6.147Similar views were shared by other submitters, who thought that transparent and consistent advertising, labelling and reporting standards, guidance and verification procedures for climate- and energy-related initiatives like carbon and emissions reporting and offsets, sustainability ratings or labelling, environmental disclosure and information about energy transition projects from regulators would contribute to investigative journalism and help improve public access to reliable information.[164]

6.148To this end, the committee is aware that the European Commission has adopted a proposal for a Green Claims Directive, intended to prevent companies from 'greenwashing', or making misleading claims about the environmental merits of their services and products (see Box 6.6). The directive is expected to come into force in 2027.

6.149There were also calls for more funding so that agencies can prevent greenwashing, develop their digital monitoring capabilities, and partner with other research organisations, with large platforms potentially contributing to costs.[166]

6.150As well as helping to address corporate greenwashing and astroturfing—forms of mis/disinformation—submitters reaffirmed these measures would build resilience and better enable communities to adapt and mitigate risks, and aid transparent and fair benefits sharing.[167]

6.151However, Ms Rebekkah Markey-Towler from the University of Melbourne relayed some of the limitations of existing legislation, advising that it does not cover people or platforms perpetrating mis/disinformation and there is room for improvement:

The problem with the protections we have, which are really very strong, is that they really only protect people who are actively involved in producing the misinformation itself. So you have to be the person who has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in order to be successful in using those provisions.[168]

6.152The UoM expressed a similar view and noted that misleading and deceptive conduct provisions 'may not adequately deal with the harms caused because 'much of the information spreads through online service providers, who do not create it but allow it to circulate'.[169]

6.153The shortcomings of Australian Consumer Law in dealing specifically with astroturfing were also raised by Dr Matthew Rimmer, who pointed to 'other remedies … under other legal doctrines', including intellectual property law and defamation law:

To the extent that an astroturfing campaign involves impersonation or false endorsements, there could be intellectual property issues in respect of passing off and personality rights. If an astroturfing campaign engages in attacks upon individual reputations, there could be issues in respect of defamation law.[170]

6.154The following chapter explores participants' views about better monitoring and regulation of digital platforms.

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 3]; Hunter Jobs Alliance, Submission 107, [p. 8]; Community Power Agency, RE-Alliance and Yes 2 Renewables, Submission131, p. 4; Ms Courtney (Coco) Venaglia, National Organiser, Friends of the Earth Australia, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2025, p. 1; Ms Sarah Altmann, Head, PublicAffairs, Southerly Ten, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2025, p. 15.

[2]See, for example, Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, pp. 5–6 and 8; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 9; CHRRUP Ltd, Submission 33, [p. 2].

[3]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 4.

[4]Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Submission 106, pp. 3–4 and 7; News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, pp. 11–12; Climate for Change, Submission123, [pp. 2–3]; Friends of the Earth, Submission 134, p. 2; Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Countering disinformation effectively: an evidence-based policy guide, 2024, Washington, DC, pp.47–48.

[5]RMIT Information Integrity Hub, Submission 118, p. 6.

[6]Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, pp. 20–21.

[7]Disinformation in the City, Submission 211, p. 2.

[8]See, for example, Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14; p. 5, Name withheld, Submission 172, pp. 2 and 6; WWF Australia, Submission 113, p. 3; Climate Capital Forum, Submission 52, p. 3.

[9]See, for example, Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, p. 21; Centre for Public Integrity, Submission129, pp.5-6; Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14; p.5; Doctors for the Environment Australia, Submission 100, p. 2.

[10]Disinformation in the City, Submission 211, p. 2.

[11]Disinformation in the City, Submission 211, p. 2.

[12]Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, pp. 6–7.

[13]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 12.

[14]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 6.

[15]ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Submission 58, p. 3.

[16]ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Submission 58, p. 4.

[17]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 8.

[18]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 7. See also, Darebin Climate Action Now, Submission161, p. 6 and Jenny Cambers-Smith, Submission 97, p. 3.

[19]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 11.

[20]ANU Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, Submission 19, p. 6.

[21]ANU Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, Submission 19, p. 8 (citation omitted).

[22]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, pp. 8 and 9. See also, Dr Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, 17 February 2026, p. 4; Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 6; Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, Submission 104, p. 5; Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12; Les Daniel, Submission 73, pp. 3–4.

[23]See, for example, Australian Associated Press, Submission 98, pp. 2 and 4; Dr Sora Park, Director, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Committee Hansard, 17 February 2026, p.39; Professor Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Chair, Scientific Panel on Information Integrity about Climate Science, International Panel on the Information Environment, Committee Hansard, 29September2025, p. 61; Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 3; Les Daniel, Submission 73, pp. 3–4.

[24]Australian Associated Press, Submission 98, p. 2.

[25]Australian Associated Press, Submission 98, p. 1.

[26]Dr Sora Park, Director, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, CommitteeHansard, 17 February 2026, p. 40.

[27]Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 4.

[28]Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 4.

[29]Les Daniel, Submission 73, p. [4]. See also, Transparency International Australia, Submission 122, [p.2]; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 9; World Wildlife Fund, Submission 113, pp. 14–15; Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 3; Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, McGill University, Submission 104, pp. 6–7.

[30]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 11.

[31]Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 8.

[32]Ms Margaret Lopez, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Broadcasting, Media and News Policy Division, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, Committee Hansard, 17 February 2060, p. 45.

[33]News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, pp. 15–16.

[34]See, for example, Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12; Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p.9; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 9; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p.10]; Comms Declare, Submission 56, [p. 8].

[35]Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14, pp. 8 and 18 and 20.

[36]See, for example, Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p. 10]; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 9; Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, pp.10‍–‍11; WWF Australia, Submission 113, pp. 14–15; Environmental Defenders Office, Submission61, p. 5; Les Daniel, Submission 73, [p. 4]; Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, pp. 7–8.

[37]Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Countering disinformation effectively: an evidence-based policy guide, 2024, Washington, DC, pp. 2 and 4.

[38]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p.12.

[39]Climate Communications Australia, Submission 197 [pp. 3 and 12].

[40]Climate Communications Australia, Submission 197, [p. 3]. See also, Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, p. 20.

[41]UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, pp. 8–9.

[42]UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 9.

[43]QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 31].

[44]See, for example, UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 6; RMIT Information Integrity Hub, Submission 118, p. 2; News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, pp. 13–14; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 37].

[45]RMIT Information Integrity Hub, Submission 118, p. 5.

[46]Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Countering disinformation effectively: an evidence-based policy guide, 2024, Washington, DC, pp. 3 and 6.

[47]Dr Sora Park, Director, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, CommitteeHansard, 17 February 2026, p. 42.

[48]RMIT Information Integrity Hub, Submission 118, pp. 4–6. See also, Climate Council of Australia, Submission 198, p. [17]; Ms Rochelle Zurnamer, Executive Manager, Gambling and Mis/Disinformation, Australian Communications and Media Authority, Committee Hansard, 29September 2025, p. 12; Ms Kate Cell, Senior Climate Campaign Manager, Union of Concerned Scientists, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2025, pp. 8–9.

[49]Dr Rys Farthing, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Committee Hansard, 16February 2026, p. 81.

[50]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p. 14. Seealso, Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12; WWF Australia, Submission 113, p. 13.

[51]Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, p. 5.

[52]Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, Submission 81, p. 26.

[53]BBC, 'The Trusted News Initiative creates Asia-Pacific network', Media release (accessed 22February2026).

[54]BBC, Trusted News Initiative (accessed 3 December 2025).

[55]BBC, Trusted News Initiative (accessed 3 December 2025).

[56]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 132, p. 5. See also, Dr Christian Downie, Professor, Australian National University; and Member, Climate Social Science Network, CommitteeHansard, 29 September 2025, p. 49; Dr John Cook, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 35; Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, p. 21.

[57]Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, p. 12. See also, Professor Daniel Angus, ChiefInvestigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 19.

[58]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, pp. 14–15. See also, Professor Daniel Angus, Chief Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 19; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [pp. 35–36]; Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, p. 21; Dr Ailie Gallant, Deputy Director, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2025, p.26.

[59]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p. 14.

[60]89 Degrees East, Submission 12, p. 3 and News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, p. 14. See also, The Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, Submission 19, pp. 4 and 9.

[61]OECD, OECD Hub on Information Integrity (accessed 9 December 2025).

[62]ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Submission 58, pp. 3–4; DrAilieGallant, Deputy Director, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2025, p. 23; United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Submission 41, pp. 3–4.

[63]North Queensland Natural History Group Inc, Submission 26, pp. 2 and 5–6; Mr Andrew Bray, National Director, Renewable Energy Alliance, Committee Hansard, 13 November 2025, p. 65.

[64]See, for example, Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, pp. 6–7; News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, p. 20; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission60, [pp. 36–37]; Dr Mel Fitzpatrick, Submission 180, p. 6.

[65]Australian Associated Press, Submission 98, p. 3.

[66]News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, p. 17. See also, Dr Eve Mayes, Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer, Pedagogy and Curriculum, Deakin University, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2025, p. 47.

[67]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, pp. 6–7.

[68]ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Submission 58, pp.5–6; MrMurrayHogarth, Submission 221, p. 5; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p.10. See also, Dr Ailie Gallant, Deputy Director, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2025, p.23; Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Submission 2, [pp. 4–5]; WePlanet Australia, Submission 204, pp.10 and 12.

[69]UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 10.

[70]See, for example, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, pp. 16–17; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [pp. 36–37]; Property Rights Australia, Submission 59, p. 22; WePlanet Australia, Submission 204, p. 10; RMIT Information Integrity Hub, Submission 118, p. 6; Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, p. 5; Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, p.8; Friends of the Earth, Submission 134, p. 10; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission132, pp. 5 and 12–13; Dr John Cook, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 35; Dr Ailie Gallant, Deputy Director, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Committee Hansard, 11November2025, p.26; Sandra Bourke, Submission 80, p. 16.

[71]IPIE, Information Integrity about Climate Science: a systematic review: Synthesis report 2025.1, 2025, p.76; Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Countering disinformation effectively: an evidence-based policy guide, 2024, Washington, DC, pp. 23–24 and26.

[72]OECD, Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, March 2024, pp.77–79 and 81; UK Government, 'Help for vulnerable people to spot disinformation and boost online safety', Press release, 28 October 2022; UK Government, Media Literacy Taskforce Fund, 18July2022 (accessed 9 December 2025).

[73]OECD, Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, March 2024, p.127; UK Government Communication Service, Resist: Counter-disinformation toolkit, 2019 (accessed 11 December 2025); UK Government Communication Service, Resist 2: Counter-disinformation toolkit, 2021 (accessed 11 December 2025); UK Government Communications, Resist3: A framework for building resilience to information threats, 2025 (accessed 11 December 2025).

[74]UNESCO, UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Alliance (accessed 3 December 2025).

[75]UNESCO, Introduction: A Media and Information Literacy Multimedia Toolkit for media (accessed 3December 2025).

[76]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 7.

[77]UNESCO, UNESCO launches free online course to tackle climate disinformation through media and information literacy (accessed 3 December 2025).

[78]Met Office, Tackling climate misinformation (accessed 2 December 2025).

[79]Met Office, Tackling climate misinformation. Emphasis in original.

[80]Met Office, Tackling climate misinformation.

[81]See, for example, Professor Julia Steinberger, Submission 135, p. 5; Parents for Climate, Submission102, p. 4; News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, p. 21; Les Daniel, Submission 73, p. [3].

[82]The Hon Anika Wells MP, Minister for Communications, 'Australia’s first National Media Literacy Strategy a step closer', Media release, 12 February 2026; Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, News Media Assistance Program (accessed 18 February 2026).

[83]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 6; Australia Media Literacy Alliance, 'AMLA Media release—Media Literacy', Media release, 16 December 2025 (accessed 12 March 2026); QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 36].

[84]The Hon Anika Wells MP, Minister for Communications, 'Australia’s first National Media Literacy Strategy a step closer', Media release, 12 February 2026.

[85]Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 7.

[86]See, for example, Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, pp. 17 and 20–21; Sandra Bourke, Submission 80, p. 16; Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, p. 5; Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 90, [p. 2].

[87]See, for example, Local & Independent News Association, Submission 18, p. 3; Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, pp.2 and 16; Jewish Climate Network, Submission 120, p. 2; Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 147, [p. 6]; Tasmanian Climate Collective, Submission 70, [pp.6–7].

[88]Doctors for the Environment Australia, Submission 100, p. 6. See also, Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, Submission 81, pp. 12 and 25; Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, pp.15–16; Australian Resources Development Pty Ltd, Submission65, pp. 4 and 14.

[89]See, for example, Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, pp. 5 and 19; Lighter Footprints, Submission 108, pp. 5–6; Professor Julia Steinberger, Submission 135, [p. 5]; Amanda De Lore, Submission 206, [p. 10].

[90]ANU Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, Submission 19, p. 4.

[91]Dr Mel Fitzpatrick, Submission 180, p. 6.

[92]ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Submission 58, p. 6.

[93]Mr Andrew Beaton, Campaign Director, Australian Democracy Network, Committee Hansard, 6February 2026, pp. 23 and 26.

[94]Dr Sora Park, Director, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, CommitteeHansard, 17 February 2026, p. 36. See also, ANU Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 66, p. 4; Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, pp. 10–11.

[95]Mr Andrew Beaton, Campaign Director, Australian Democracy Network, Committee Hansard, 6February 2026, p. 27.

[96]Dr John Cook, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29September2025, p. 35.

[97]UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 10. See also, QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 37]; 89 Degrees East, Submission 12, p. 3; Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, p.19; Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, p. 8; Coronium Pty Ltd, Submission 15, [p. 6].

[98]Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, p. 8.

[99]Dr Sora Park, Director, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Committee Hansard, 17 February 2026, p. 42.

[100]QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 37].

[101]QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [pp. 36–37].

[102]Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, p. 7 (citations omitted).

[103]See, for example, Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, p. 12; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 31]; Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Submission2, [p. 4]; Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, pp. 7–8; Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, p. 12; Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, p. 5; Mr Les Daniel, Submission 73, [p. 8].

[104]IPIE, Submission 42, p. 6. See also, 89 Degrees East, Submission 12, p. 3; Dr John Cook, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 35.

[105]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 132, pp. 12–13. See also, QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [pp.36–37] and ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Submission 58, p. 5.

[106]University of Melbourne, Submission 128, pp. 10–11 (citations omitted).

[107]Tasmanian Climate Collective, Submission 70, [p. 8].

[108]Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, pp. 17; Friends of the Earth, Submission 134, p. 10;Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, p. 12.

[109]Coronium Pty Ltd, Submission 15, [p. 6]. See also, News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, Submission 4, pp. 13–14.

[110]IPIE, Information Integrity about Climate Science: a systematic review: Synthesis report 2025.1, 2025, pp.74–76. See also: Union of Concerned Scientists, Submission 111, p. 11.

[111]Mr Alex Murray, Member, Climate Action Against Disinformation, Committee Hansard, 29September 2025, pp. 70–71.

[112]Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Submission 2, [p. 4]. See also, Mr Andrew Hallam, Submission 195, p. 8; Ms Raphaela Raaber et al, Submission 124, p. 17; University of Melbourne, Submission 128, pp. 10–11.

[113]University of Melbourne, Submission 128, p. 11.

[114]Climate Action Burwood/Canada Bay, Submission 78, [p. 2].

[115]Future Smart Strategies, Submission 112, pp. 1 and 2.

[116]UNESCO, Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.

[117]Verified, About (accessed 2 December 2025).

[118]EUvsDisinfo, 'To challenge Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns': Eight years of EUvsDisinfo, 5July 2023.

[119]EUvsDisinfo, Sneaky heat: The Kremlin uses climate change to push its favourite FIMI narratives, 7November 2025.

[120]University of Melbourne, Submission 128, p. 11.

[121]Nelli Stevenson, Submission 89, p. 3.

[122]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, pp. 12.

[123]Dr Jennifer Lacy-Nichols, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29September 2025, p. 29.

[124]Climate Council of Australia, Submission 198, [p. 16]. See also, Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, p.18; ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p.13; Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14, pp. 8 and 60; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 11]; Les Daniel, Submission 73, [p. 3]; Dr Christian Downie, Professor, Australian National University and Member, Climate Social Science Network, Committee Hansard, 29September 2025, p. 50.

[125]Coal Australia, Submission 64, [pp. 3–4].

[126]International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE), Submission 42, p. 5. See also, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p. 8; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p. 9]; Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, p. 12; Coronium Pty Ltd, Submission 15, [p. 5]; CoalAustralia, Submission 64, [p. 6]; Professor Matthew Hornsey et al, Submission 126, [p. 6]; Les Daniel, Submission 73, [p. 3].

[127]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p. 6.

[128]Climate Council of Australia, Submission 198, [p. 16].

[129]See, for example, Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12; Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14, p.61; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p. 9]; InfluenceMap, Submission 69, pp. 9–10.

[130]Mr Jack Herring, Australia Program Manager, InfluenceMap, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 41.

[131]Mr Gerard Holland, Chief Executive Officer, Page Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 16February 2026, p. 55.

[132]CoalAustralia, Submission 64, pp. 2–3. See also, Nick Jorss, Submission 139, p. 21; The Page Research Centre, Submission 140, p. 15; Stephen Johnston, Submission 45, [p. 4].

[133]Dr Jennifer Lacy-Nichols, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29September 2025, p. 29.

[134]CoalAustralia, Submission 64, [p. 4].

[135]CoalAustralia, Submission 64, [p. 5–6]. See also, Property Rights Australia, Submission 59, p. 20 and Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14, p. 33.

[136]Dr Jeremy Walker, Submission 243, p. 74.

[137]Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, pp. 3–4. See also, Dr Lucy Hopkins, Academic, Centre for People, Place and Planet, Edith Cowan University, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2025, pp. 48–49; Dr Eve Mayes, Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer, Pedagogy and Curriculum, Deakin University, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2025, pp. 48–49; Professor Matthew Hornsey et al, Submission 126, [p. 6].

[138]Ms Elisa Morgera, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Climate Change, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 55 and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Submission 41, p. 6. See also, Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, pp. 12–13; Ms Raphaela Raaber, Academic Staff Member, Centre for People, Place and Planet, Edith Cowan University, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2025, p. 49; Environmental Defenders Office, Submission 61, p. 5; Ms Penny Tangey, Submission 188, pp. 4–5.

[139]Dr Jeremy Walker, Submission 243, p. 74.

[140]Comms Declare, Submission 56, [p. 17].

[141]Mr Jack Herring, Australia Program Manager, InfluenceMap, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 40; Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12. See also, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, pp. 12 and 15; Mr Murray Hogarth, Submission 221, pp. 18–19; Centre for Public Integrity, Submission 129, p. 3.

[142]Mr Andrew Beaton, Campaign Director, Australian Democracy Network, Committee Hansard, 6February 2026, p. 25.

[143]See, for example, Australian Democracy Network, Submission 117, [p. 6]; CoalAustralia, Submission 64, [p. 3]; Martin O'Dea, Submission 201, p. 12; MrMurray Hogarth, Submission 221, p. 18.

[144]Friends of the Earth, Submission 134, p. 9.

[145]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Submission 21, p.13.

[146]Mr Andrew Beaton, Campaign Director, Australian Democracy Network, Committee Hansard, 6February 2026, p. 25.

[147]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Submission 21, p.13.

[148]Climate Council of Australia, Submission 198, p. 16.

[149]European Commission, New EU rules on political advertising come into effect (accessed 17 March 2026).

[150]University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre, Submission 63, pp. 7 and 8.

[151]See, for example, QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 31]; WePlanet Australia, Submission 204, p. 10; Professor Daniel Angus, Chief Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 21.

[152]Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [pp. 8–9].

[153]Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p. 10]. See also, Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, Submission 81, p. 25 and Nelli Stevenson, Submission 89, p. 5.

[154]Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, Submission 81, p. 2.

[155]Ms Rochelle Zurmaner, Executive Manager, Gambling and Mis/Disinformation, Australian Communications and Media Authority, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 14.

[156]WePlanet Australia, Submission 204, p. 10.

[157]University of Melbourne, Submission 128, pp. 7 and 8.

[158]See, for example, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p. 14; QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 11]; National Environmental Law Association, Submission 24, [pp. 1–2]; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [pp. 8–9]; Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, Submission 81, p. 3; Coronium Pty Ltd, Submission 15, [p. 6]; Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, p. 12; Climate Communications Australia, Submission 197, [p. 3]; Property Rights Australia, Submission 59, p.21.

[159]QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, [p. 11].

[160]Climate Social Science Network, Submission 105, pp. 9 and 12.

[161]Geelong Sustainability Group, Submission 79, p. 2.

[162]National Environmental Law Association, Submission 24, [p. 2].

[163]Dr Matthew Rimmer, Submission 28, p. 27.

[164]See, for example, Professor Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Chair, Scientific Panel on Information Integrity about Climate Science, IPIE, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 61; Mrs Michelle Brooks, Director, and Mr Michael Tangonan, Officer, National Environmental Law Association, Committee Hansard, 13 November 2025, pp. 20–22; United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Submission 41, pp. 2–3 and 5–6; National Environmental Law Association, Submission 24, [p. 2]; Nick Jorss, Submission 139, p. 21; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 6; Property Rights Australia, Submission 59, p. 21; IPIE, Submission 42, pp. 3–4; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p. 9]; Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14, p. 30.

[165]European Commission, Green claims (accessed 17 March 2026).

[166]ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21, p. 14 and National Environmental Law Association, Submission 24, [p. 2].

[167]See, for example, IPIE, Submission 42, pp. 3–4; Professor Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Chair, Scientific Panel on Information Integrity about Climate Science, IPIE, Committee Hansard, 29 September 2025, p. 61; United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Submission 41, pp. 2–3 and 5–6; National Environmental Law Association, Submission 24, [p. 2]; Nick Jorss, Submission 139, p. 21; UTS Centre for Media Transition, Submission 67, p. 6; Property Rights Australia, Submission59, p. 21; Dr Adam Lucas, Submission 16, [p. 9]; Rainforest Reserves Australia, Submission 14, p. 30.

[168]Ms Rebekkah Markey-Towler, Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, Committee Hansard, 29September 2025, pp. 35–36. See also, UQ Pro Bono Centre, Submission 63, pp. 4 and 11–12; United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Submission 41, p. 6.

[169]University of Melbourne, Submission 128, p. 9.

[170]Dr Matthew Rimmer, Submission 28, p. 26.