The Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, introduced this year, paves the way towards a 1984 totalitarian reality where foreign organisations find themselves involved in regulating Australia’s free speech.

Signatories to the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation launched in 2021 included Adobe, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Redbubble, TikTok, and Twitter.

Some of the signatories to the Code have been criticised in the past for their relationship and business deals with the Chinese Communist Party, while others, such as TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, are based in China. This does not bode well for free speech.

There are now several red flags concerning the bill.

The Constitution protects free speech through section 7 and section 24; provisions related to democratic suffrage and representative government. Political communication is a vital part of Australia’s human rights framework.

Some say Australia does not have human rights as we do not have an official federal ‘bill of rights’. Several states, however, do uphold human rights with state Acts – recently this has been re-established through the court ruling in Queensland where some coronavirus mandates related to the vaccine were found to be unlawful.

Although not every state has a ‘human rights act’, that does not mean Australia lacks constitutionally guaranteed protections for free speech, as it is an inherent part of Australia’s election processes. Without free speech, an election cannot operate justly or fairly. Therefore the Constitution, which provides Australians with the guaranteed right to vote and be fairly represented by elected officials, indicates political communication and free speech are the bedrock of our political and socio-cultural framework and that is protected by federal law.

Free speech is being targeted, ironically, through the very officials some chose to elect over the pandemic. The Labor government arguably won the last election due to the fragmentation of the conservative vote, since many freedom parties sprung up to combat the Liberal Party which were at the time proponents of the pandemic mandates. The result for Australia is that the Liberal Party lost the election and now the Labor Party, which sits much closer to the Chinese Communist government, is dictating policy. Labor is coming after free speech.

What actually does the bill purport to do?

The beginning of the Exposure Draft in part 1 indicates the ACMA may make digital platforms report to them regarding matters of misinformation and disinformation. They can ask for information, documents, and evidence. In other words, the bill allows for the ACMA to exert incredible and arbitrary control over citizen communications, through what those citizens say on private entities. It demonstrates an incredible lack of concern for privacy, not to mention carries undeniable ‘nanny state’ vibes. Section 21 or the ‘self-incrimination’ provision is also worrying in that an individual is not excused from giving information that may incriminate them in another offence. In other words, there is nothing stopping the government from abusing this bill if it wishes to target and incriminate specific individuals. The government may use the bill to dig for evidence it should otherwise not have access to.

If the ACMA registers a ‘misinformation code’ a digital platform provider must comply with the code or other digital standards set by the ACMA.

Exempted from ‘misinformation’, include state-approved bodies and professional news sources. Nothing in the bill exempts people who are operating in a non-professional capacity unless their content is pure satire. In other words, the vast majority of citizens, most of whom do not post things on social media in a ‘professional capacity’, are not allowed to spread what the state deems is ‘misinformative information’. It is an undeniable attack on citizen free speech. ‘Professional news source’ is defined in the bill, and it encompasses those subject to legislative regulations in their content production. Citizen journalists, independent journalists who are unregulated, and every civilian who currently uses social media for personal activism or the dissemination of information, is not adequately protected by the bill.

The second issue that jumps out immediately in the bill is its unnecessarily broad definition of ‘harm’. What is deemed harmful can include ‘harm’ to the environment and even harm to Australia’s economy. This indicates that if a progressive-operated government thinks lowering tax is harmful to the collective Australian economy then statements promoting free market capitalism may be deemed a threat and therefore be subject to regulation by the ACMA.

It is utterly ludicrous and negligently broad drafting. The addition of ‘harm to the economy’ provides clues as to what the government may target in future – namely conservative economic paradigms, or anybody combating the ‘climate catastrophe’ which the government may believe justifies a social credit system. Anything causing ‘harm’ to the health of Australians is also under threat. Anybody who questioned coronavirus mandates, therefore, would have been targeted by this bill if it was in operation during the pandemic.

Section 7 defines what ‘misinformation and disinformation’ actually encompasses, and yes, it’s broad. It encompasses speech that could ‘contribute’ to serious harm. Harm, as defined in the bill, does not refer always to physical harm but ‘harm’ that may not even be tangible in terms of measuring it. The ramifications of legislation like this when activated are frankly, dystopian. Furthermore, the people who judge whether something is of a section 7 nature, are not part of a properly independent body.

Is the future of Australia’s free speech rights riding on the likes of only 7 people? A more appropriate body to be assessing what is ‘true’ and ‘false’ should be much larger in size, consist of several diverse people who operate within and outside of the government, and be represented in the demographic ratio that best reflects the views of the entire population of Australia. They should have skills and expertise in a wide variety of topics in order to clarify what is ‘true’ and ‘false’. The government is indicating it should speak for the majority of Australians instead of letting the majority of Australians operate independently and for themselves on social media.

It does make one wonder whose side the government is really on.