Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (12:29): I hear my colleague the wonderful member for Newcastle and the concerns that she has about the issue of misinformation and disinformation, and there is so much of what she says that I absolutely agree with. We are all concerned about our children, our grandchildren and young adults who are not listening to good news—that is, accurate news—and we in this place have a responsibility to get that right. However, we also have to make sure that there are not consequences that we do not intend by implementing legislation passed in this House.

Our role on this side of the House is to ask questions and to vote according to our priorities. Before I begin talking about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is about combating misinformation and disinformation, I want to talk about the misinformation being propagated by the national broadcaster, the ABC, because it is incredibly relevant to this bill. Exhibit A: the ABC broadcasted in late August and early September claims linking decades of use of paraquat and diquat herbicides to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in farmers. The story portrayed a hotspot in my electorate of Mallee. I am not saying that there isn't a Parkinson's hotspot or similar and, as the shadow assistant minister for regional health, the incidence of Parkinson's in my electorate concerns me greatly. If there is a causal link then we want to get to the bottom of it. I have been advocating for years for funding to support movement disorder nurses and support across Mallee with no success at this point in time. The fact is that there is no evidence that there is a causal link to Parkinson's disease from the use of these chemicals, and the ABC portrayed historical practices as if they are occurring today.

Currently the APVMA is reviewing dosages of paraquat and diquat, I respect the independence of the APVMA, who were effectively also attacked by the ABC as being in the pocket of the chemical companies. You can talk all you like about the editorial independence of the ABC, but they must put facts in their claims or they will actually become a disreputable source of news—misinformation, if you like. Radio ratings certainly indicate that Australians are switching off the ABC. Significant reduction of paraquat dosage will mean a return to heavy tillage farming. This will radically impact the people in my electorate. It actually will impact of the people in Sydney because you do not want Mallee dust all over your city. As Ron Hards from Werrimull in my electorate told me, the low dosages being discussed are so low you might as well pee in the corner of the paddock—that's how much use it will be.

Constituents and peak bodies are coming to me very concerned about this and very grateful for the motion that I moved in the federal chamber this week on this topic. They are beyond dismayed at the ABC Landline program on the issue, so much so that the APVMA issued a statement critical of the ABC making that connection and, most importantly, highlighted that we are talking about historical practices, such as the portrayal of a farmer ducking as a crop duster sprayed chemicals over him as he applied chemicals on a farm. Nobody is suggesting that children are being exposed to herbicides or that farmers are being drenched in herbicides today, because modern practices have changed. Sealed cabins and sealed systems for herbicide use are the norm. The representation by the ABC tried to link hardworking farmers and others from my electorate who are dealing with Parkinson's disease and who are not making that direct link themselves. The editorialising by the ABC in claiming the link was sensationalist and arguably doling out misinformation.

Exhibit B is fake gunshots. When it comes to misleading use of footage or audio, we had the ABC in Senate estimates this week admitting that it had added additional gunshots to footage of Australian troops in a helicopter deployed in Afghanistan in 2012. This was disgraceful behaviour on the part of the ABC.

Exhibit C is a government official from the US state of Georgia who, last month, took issue over the ABC Four Corners program's misinformation about their Vogtle nuclear power plant, with the program host claiming that the plant had not reduced power prices but put them up. But the vice-chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, Tim Echols, said that the plant was not the primary source of rate increases and that the ABC's failure to mention other sources of price increases had amounted to misinformation. For instance, there is, firstly, the amount of gas that the USA has been shipping to Europe to help combat the flow of Russian gas and, secondly, the cost of new grid infrastructure to accommodate electricity generated from solar panels. It might relate to Australia. These are just a few examples where the ABC goes on an ideological crusade, putting the narrative ahead of the facts, then shaping the content to suit the narrative—or, as some call it, fake news. The point is that, if we are going to combat misinformation and spend $1 billion a year financing a public broadcaster, they have to get their facts right and not engage in misinformation themselves.

Getting back to the bill, this is the Albanese Labor government's second attempt at regulating what people can and cannot say online. Their first attempt drew 20,000 submissions opposed to the proposal. The coalition campaigned to bin the bill, and the bin is where it ended up. The trouble is that Labor has done a dumpster dive to bring up a new bill that is worse than the first one. The bill comes late in a parliamentary term during which this government has had plenty of time to get the settings right. They also have their anti-doxxing and hate crime amendment bills before parliament. I'm very concerned that sitting days are running out and that this government may be readying the guillotine on this and even other bills when there are very serious implications to be considered in relation to each. That is what debate is about.

In this misinformation do-over—act 2, if you like—the government ran a ridiculously short seven-day consultation process which minimised the number of submissions and objections that could actually be made. I can assure the House that Mallee constituents have been making many, many submissions to my inbox, with this being the No. 1 topic raised with me in recent months, given the government's ridiculously short timeline for so-called consultation. This bill is so bad that the coalition has already pledged to repeal the bill if it becomes law. The provisions of the bill are extremely broad and would capture many things said by Australians every day. Under the bill, the honestly held opinions of Australians can be deemed to be misinformation. Digital platforms are required to identify whether or not pieces of content are misinformation. The process of identifying this misinformation is highly subjective and will lead to the suppression of free speech of everyday Australians. Concerned about religious freedom, faith leaders have united in protest at the attempt to have the government regulate what is 'reasonable' religious belief, as opposed to 'unreasonable', and this too is highly concerning. In other parts of the world, persecution of people of faith occurs because the government determines that certain beliefs, teachings or practices are contrary to government policy.

We have criminal laws for people who commit criminal acts, even though we have seen a hole in the law recently when people held up flags or symbols of listed terrorist organisations. It's concerning that the government seems more focused on acting like religious police, deciding what is or isn't a reasonable religious belief and turning a blind eye to promotion of terrorism through religious fundamentalism in Australia. The right to hold and communicate religious beliefs is one of the most fundamental in any democracy. Spirituality is the domain of the individual, not the state. We need government for many things. Determining whether our religious beliefs are reasonable is not one of them. The Albanese government's misinformation bill represents a clear and present danger to the open communication of religious beliefs in Australia. Remarkably, Mr Albanese and his communications minister, Michelle Rowland, want this bill to become the law of Australia by the end of the year. This simply must not happen.

There are many serious problems with this bill, but it is notable how many religious groups have zeroed in on the risks it represents to people of faith. The core problem is that the bill empowers digital platforms and government bureaucrats to determine whether a religious belief is reasonable. This point is well made in a submission on the bill by the combined faith leaders, representing a large number of faiths, including the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist churches and the Shia Muslim community. The submission notes:

… digital providers will be assessing whether the content of a religious belief is reasonable in determining whether or not it is misinformation. This is the same as saying that providers are empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself.

Everyday Australians are captured by this bill, but some groups are excluded from its operation. For instance, any reasonable dissemination of material for an academic, scientific or artistic purpose is excluded from the bill, but if an everyday Australian disagrees with an academic then he or she will have committed the crime of misinformation. This is outrageous and creates two classes of speech in Australia: one for favoured groups, like academics, and one for everybody else. Here is a sample of the objections to the bill.

The Victorian Bar Association stated:

Speech about political, philosophical, artistic or religious topics often involves statements that are not straightforwardly 'factual', but which are not mere statements of subjective belief. Much scientific discourse involves the testing and rejection of hypotheses, in which even 'true' information is provisional or falsifiable. The prospect that ACMA—and digital platform providers—will be required to identify not merely misleading facts, but also misleading 'claims', 'opinions', 'commentary' and 'invective', will have an obvious chilling effect on freedom of speech; especially in sensitive or controversial areas.

The Institute of Public Affairs have highlighted the reliance that social media platforms have on fact checkers, who, they argue, failed the nation during the Voice to Parliament referendum. The IPA say they analysed 187 fact-checking articles relating to the Voice to Parliament between 22 May 2022 and 14 October 2023 and found that an overwhelming 170 articles, or 91 per cent of fact checks, assessed claims made by opponents of the Voice. In the same period, Australian fact checkers assessed just 17 claims made by proponents of the Voice. This is despite over 60 per cent of Australians rejecting the Voice to Parliament on 14 October 2023.

The IPA notes that six months before the referendum my Nationals colleague, shadow minister for Indigenous affairs Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, argued that fact checkers were complicit in perpetuating the false claim that the Voice was a 'modest proposal'. In April 2023 she highlighted the disproportionate targeting of the 'no' campaign, noting: 'The fact checkers go all out on wrongly fact-checking basic rhetorical claims we've made but never examine any of the statements from Voice supporters.' To be accredited by the IFCN, fact checkers must uphold a commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness and not concentrate their fact checking on any one side. As the IPA's research uncovered, Australians can have no confidence that this is the case with domestic fact checkers.

The Australian Christian Lobby said that the definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', together with the threat of severe penalties for digital platform providers who do not comply, are a recipe for overcensorship. Where the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, instead they will be requiring digital platforms to control our public discourse. In essence, ACMA becomes the ministry of truth. If that doesn't chill you, you have a problem. From public health to politics, the economy and ideology, ACMA will determine what you are allowed to say online.

‍

‍