The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee is conducting a public hearing today as part of its inquiry into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 [Provisions]. The hearing can be viewed here.
Croakey Health Media’s submission to the inquiry is here. A summary follows below.
Strong support for action
Croakey Health Media strongly supports efforts to more effectively regulate digital platforms in order to tackle the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation.
The online dissemination of misinformation and disinformation undermines community understanding and political and policy responses to critical public health concerns, ranging from the prevention of illness and disease, to the climate health crisis, and action on the social and cultural determinants of health. It also undermines democracy and social cohesion.
We note that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as well as other population groups, are disproportionately affected by the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation, and therefore they and their needs should be centrally engaged in responses.
Cultural safety
It should be acknowledged that in Australia, digital platforms are operating upon the Country of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and therefore have a particular responsibility to ensure their cultural safety and wellbeing while using digital platforms.
We can find no reference to the importance of embedding cultural safety into regulation of digital platforms, whether in the legislation or accompanying documents. This is a deficit that should be addressed in amendments to the bill and accompanying statements.
The right to online safety
The legislation and accompanying statements stress the intent to balance regulation of digital platforms with the right of freedom of speech and expression.
We assert that there should be equivalent attention in the legislation and accompanying statements to asserting the right of Australians to safety online, as well as the right to a safe, reliable and relevant news and information system.
The rights of children and others who are most likely to suffer harm from an unsafe online environment must be prioritised.
Public health as a consideration in assessing harm
We strongly support the legislation’s inclusion of public health, including preventative health measures, as one of the types of identified harm.
We note, however, that concerns have been raised about the narrow definition of public health used in the explanatory memorandum, as “intended to include the government system for providing for the health needs and services of all Australians, including preventative health measures, on the understanding that, if this system and these measures are undermined, the health of Australians will consequentially be undermined”.
Committee members may be interested in an article published at Croakey on 27 September, ‘Taking on Big Tech: how is the fight shaping up’, which includes these comments from public health experts:
Professor Sharon Friel (ANU) told Croakey that it is fantastic that the Government is developing legislation to tackle online misinformation and disinformation, but that it will do little to prevent harm to public health if the legislation focuses only on health services. “The legislation must address the misinformation and disinformation related to the environmental, social and commercial determinants of health such as fossil fuels, plastics and junk foods,” she said.
Professor Kathryn Backholer (Deakin University) also suggested the definition of public health was overly narrow and wouldn’t encompass other instances of misinformation and disinformation that may cause serious harm to public health in Australia.
Review of legislation’s impact
The Government proposes that there be a review of the legislation’s impact every three years. We argue that this is an unacceptable delay given the significant and wide-ranging impacts of disinformation and misinformation.
We argue that the impact of the legislation should be reviewed within 18 months of it being enacted, and regularly thereafter. With the rapidly evolving development of artificial intelligence and other developments, it is highly likely that further actions will be needed.
The voices of lived experience
In her second reading speech on the bill, Minister Michelle Rowland said: “The bill has undergone considerable consultation, with a significant breadth and depth of engagement with key stakeholders, including from the digital platforms industry, legal and civil society groups, media and factchecking organisations, and research and academic institutions.”
It is notable that her statement did not include a critical group: people with lived experience of the harmful impacts of disinformation and misinformation.
We recommend that the Department and ACMA establish an advisory group to ensure the voices of these community members influence implementation and evaluation of the legislation.
It is important that such a group has strong representation of First Nations people and other groups who are at increased risk of harm from online disinformation and misinformation.
Wider action needed
Croakey is aware of the widespread circulation of misinformation and disinformation about the bill, including by mainstream media organisations. It is both predictable and ironic that efforts to tackle misinformation and disinformation would be subject to misinformation and disinformation.
This is a reminder that this bill, while important, is only one part of the whole-of-government and whole-of-community responses that are needed, if the escalating problems of misinformation and disinformation are to be effectively addressed.
We are not aware that there is any national strategy, involving all levels of government, to tackle disinformation and misinformation, and believe this is an approach that should be progressed.
Such a strategy should also consider the role of media policy in ensuring a diverse, sustainable media landscape, providing local, jurisdictional and national coverage. We note that state, territory and local governments also have a role to play in contributing to a healthier media landscape.
Further reading
In August 2023, Croakey provided comments on the previous iteration of this bill. They can be read in full here.
See all our previous policy submissions.
Archive of articles on
A digital way forward
Below are principles advocating for safer digital infrastructure and news and information systems, developed through a collaborative process hosted by Croakey Health Media and first published on 20 August, 2023.
- Digital platforms/communications infrastructure is vital for the health and wellbeing of people, communities, Country and the planet. In an era of escalating crises and emergencies, including climate disruption, it should be regarded as essential infrastructure that must be accessible and available for all, noting its importance in emergency communications in particular.
- Digital platforms/communications infrastructure should be a safe space for diverse communities, and for respectful interactions and communications, as well as the sharing of reliable, relevant news and information. It should not incentivise or support the sharing of misinformation and disinformation.
- Digital platforms/communications infrastructure should centre the public interest, rather than being driven by corporate imperatives that actively undermine health and wellbeing.
- Governments have a role in supporting innovation, growth and greater diversity in this sector, including through seeding of not-for-profit or other non-corporate models, and more effective regulation of Big Tech.
- The expertise and values of First Nations peoples should inform development of this sector.
- Equity considerations should underpin developments and discussions in this space.
- Young people are also central to these discussions. People and communities who have particularly benefited from the platform formerly provided by Twitter, including people with disabilities, lived experience of health challenges, poverty, housing insecurity, and incarceration, also have much to contribute to this discussion.
- The health sector, researchers, professional organisations and other forms of institutional power have an important role in these discussions, and should be engaging with civil society, as well as tech researchers, developers and advocates, and policymakers.
- The health workforce, including researchers, clinicians, policymakers, public health and health promotions professionals, educators, community members, carers and NGOs, should be supported to develop greater skills and knowledge in this area.
- Digital platforms/communications infrastructure should contribute to community cohesion and the sharing and development of knowledge, networks and connections, at local, national and global levels.
