Executive Summary
What does this bill do?
Throughout the inquiry, a number of claims about the bill's purpose and content have circulated online. There are important points to make about what this bill does, and why.
Protections for freedom of expression and human rights
The bill's definitions of misinformation and disinformation, and the provisions which exclude certain content from its coverage, have attempted to strike a balance between upholding freedom of expression and combatting the serious effects of misinformation and disinformation on Australian society.
The bill is mindful of Australia's international human rights obligations, and has been reviewed by the Office of International Law within the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Government Solicitor.
The bill seeks to strengthen elements of human rights protections, by ensuring that digital platforms reduce the risk of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation being disseminated online. As stated in the bill's Explanatory Memorandum, in this way the bill assists to protect the right of Australians to security of the person. The bill also seeks to safeguard the right of Australians to participate in public affairs, and to vote and be elected, by seeking to minimise misinformation and disinformation which circulates and undermines Australians' ability to make informed choices in the conduct of public affairs.
Public debate would be protected by providing for the reasonable dissemination of content for academic, artistic, scientific or religious purposes.
Ensuring digital platforms are transparent with the Australian public
The bill proposes to ensure that digital platforms are transparent with the Australian public, with measures designed to allow the ACMA to track the platforms' progress in addressing misinformation and disinformation. This would be done through proposed powers for the ACMA to be able to gather information and ensure that platforms are keeping appropriate records.
In the event that the digital platform industry's efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation are insufficient, the ACMA would have the power to approve industry-made codes and make standards to ensure that platform providers prevent (and respond to) misinformation and disinformation. Codes and standards approved by the ACMA would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and could be disallowed by the Parliament.
The ACMA would be able to make rules which deal with media literacy plans to be published and maintained by the digital platforms, as well as risk management plans and complaints and dispute handling processes.
Making digital platforms responsible for the content on their services
The bill does not propose that everyday Australians would be fined for social media posts, but instead puts the obligation on digital platforms to be responsible for the content they have on their services. The ACMA would be able to investigate platforms and companies, and individuals providing services to those platforms. The ACMA would not have the power to penalise or investigate individuals for the posts they make online.
Ensuring parliamentary oversight
Rules, approved codes and standards made under the bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. These instruments would need to be accompanied by Explanatory Statements, including a statement of compatibility with human rights.
An independent triennial review of the operation would report to the Parliament, and include public consultation and an assessment of the legislation's impact on freedom of expression. The ACMA would also be required to provide an annual report on the operation of the bill.
Concluding comments
The inquiry process conducted by parliamentary committees is a vital mechanism for the development and testing of public policy and legislation, and this inquiry has been no exception. Committees allow parliamentarians the chance to investigate the effects of proposed legislation, and for individuals to have their views placed on the public record.
The committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders from academia, religious groups, the digital platforms industry, the legal community, media groups, and human rights organisations.
The committee has also received many thousands of emails, submissions and phone calls from members of the public expressing their concerns at the claims they had heard about the bill.
The range of views on different elements of the bill show that a healthy debate on legislation which affects Australians is important to the functioning of our democratic system. It is important that Australians are able to express their views on a wide variety of significant matters of policy.
However, some of the views put forward to the committee were deeply polarising, and some were highly offensive. A number of individuals and organisations declined to attend public hearings due to their concerns over the polarising views expressed about the bill, and the committee is aware of threats made to an organisation ahead of their appearance before the committee.
The committee takes the protection of witnesses and individuals and groups who make submissions seriously, and condemns any action which seeks to intimidate or threaten anyone who provides evidence. Any action which harms or penalises a witness due to their giving of evidence is a criminal offence which may be prosecuted in the courts.
The need for legislation to protect Australians from seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation, while protecting Australians' right to freedom of expression, security and participation in public affairs, is vital for our healthy democracy's ability to function.
While digital communications platforms have had a significant benefit on our lives, the platform providers must take more responsibility for the content they host, and work to minimise the harmful effects of misinformation and disinformation.