Critics of abortion and trans ideology could be silenced in Australia after parliamentarians backed a proposed law to give the country’s media authority more powers, vexing the Australian Christian Lobby.
Australian lawmakers approved the “Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024” in the House of Representatives by 78 votes to 57 on November 7.
The Bill has now been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for further scrutiny.
The legislation amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and imposes certain “obligations” on digital communication platform providers for distributing digital content deemed “reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive,” summarized the Parliament of Australia on its website, “and is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm of a specified type.”
The law also expands the compliance and enforcement powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). It would mean the ACMA is enabled to receive information from providers as needed, and determine standards for misinformation, with parties falling foul of the proposed law facing financial fines.
Proponents for the law cited concerns about online misinformation expressed by 75 percent of Australians in a survey by the University of Canberra for its Digital News Report: Australia 2024.
However, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) lashed out at the new legislation, calling it both “Orwellian” and “an unmatched threat to freedom of speech in Australia.”
“The proposed legislation would allow the government of the day to impose their subjective view of ‘truth’ onto public discourse and effectively silence dissenting voices,” said Michelle Pearse, Chief Executive Officer of the ACL.
Pearse expressed particular worries about the bill silencing the rights of pro-lifers and people opposed to trans ideology.
“The Department’s own Impact Analysis states the Bill would stop the spread of information that might reverse ‘the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people,’ suggesting it may well silence pro-life views and views that oppose trans ideology,” Pearse warned.
She added that limiting freedom of speech in such a way could threaten democracy itself in the country.
Pearse expressed further fears that digital platforms faced threats with “enormous fines” if they failed to remove so-called “misinformation”, should the bill pass through the Senate.
“By granting ACMA the ability to arbitrarily determine what is ‘false, misleading, or deceptive’ and what is ‘reasonably likely to cause or contribute to harm,’ this Bill gives the Government unprecedented control over the media narrative on contentious and disputed topics,” she added.
Pearse compared the bill to a “similar” previous Exposure Draft Bill, gaining 23,000 responses from the public during a consultation, with concern about the “broad new powers” proposed for the ACMA to censor online content.
“This is especially concerning for Christians and Australians who disagree with radical ideologies being pushed by influential fringe groups,” Pearse continued. “We have already seen the E-Commissioner forcibly remove posts on X (formerly known as Twitter), which criticize radical gender ideology.”
Many parliamentarians opposed the new legislation, expressing similar concerns to the ACL, according to Pearse who accused the Australian Government of “pushing this through.”
“The ACL is disappointed to see the Australian Government rush these reforms through the House of Representatives after giving Australians only 11 days to formally respond to the Bill,” added Pearse.
The ACL is now calling on the Australian Government to abandon its online misinformation Bill and commit to protecting democratic freedom of speech.
In a Human Rights Scrutiny Report dated October 10 (2024), the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledged that the bill supports several human rights, as per the Universal Declaration. However, it also found issues with the proposed law in regards to legal rights to freedom of expression and to privacy.
The issue with freedom of expression, according to the human rights committee, is the proposed monitoring and regulation of disseminated information by the ACMA actually “limits the right.”
A further limitation are found in the extra powers proposed for the ACMA in approving standards and making rules, alongside information and documents provided to the media authority by digital providers, which may involve the disclosure of personal information.
The committee expounded that freedom of expression rights were allowed to “shock or disturb” according to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and “includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of an individual's choice.”
Furthermore, the committee acknowledged this legal right carried “special duties and responsibilities" but pointed out “restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be construed strictly and any restrictions must be justified in strict conformity” within certain limits.
In regards to privacy, the committee said the scheme would regulate potentially content deemed seriously harmful: “However, this would not prevent a digital service provider platform from regulating content in circumstances outside the scope of scenarios contemplated by the bill so as to avoid the risk of a civil penalty for non-compliance.”
The committee gave as an example someone posting factually incorrect content about a local election.
Under the proposed law, the platform could remove this content on the basis that it is incorrect and political “even if that end-user had a very small following and so the dissemination of their views would be unlikely to have a tangible impact on that election or lead to any other tangible harm.”
The committee also warned that nothing would prevent a platform provider, under the proposed bill, “from regulating more content than is specified in a code or standard.”
