The Australian government’s controversial mis- and disinformation bill has been abandoned after fierce opposition from civil liberty groups, human rights advocates, and faith groups saw it fail to draw the required support from other political parties to make it through the nation’s upper house.
While the bill had passed within the House of Representatives by a vote of 78-57, it received near-unanimous opposition within the Senate from non-government members, including the Coalition, One Nation, the Greens, and independent senators.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland announced the federal government would now not proceed with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which was a part of a raft of laws the Labor party was attempting to pass in the ultimate parliamentary sitting before the tip of the yr, with an election widely anticipated to be held in early 2025.
“Based on public statements and engagements with senators, it is obvious that there isn’t a pathway to legislate this proposal through the Senate,” Minister Rowland said on Sunday.
Minister Rowland sought to defend the federal government’s second try and pass the laws, which got here after the primary draft bill was widely condemned and withdrawn for amendments, insisting that misinformation and disinformation presented an ongoing threat to democracy, national security, and online safety,
“Seriously harmful mis- and disinformation poses a threat to safety, the integrity of elections, democracy and national security, and 80 per cent of Australians want motion,” she said.
The minister criticised the Federal Opposition for opposing the laws, saying, “The Coalition committed to legislating safeguards when in Government, but selected to put partisanship above any try and navigate the general public interest.”
However, the laws was also opposed by independent senators and the progressive Greens party, with Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young labelling the bill “half-baked” and “poorly explained” during an appearance on the national broadcaster ABC’s ‘Insiders’ programme on Sunday.
The fiercest criticism of the bill, nonetheless, got here from human rights advocates and faith groups, who attacked it as a threat to freedom of speech and spiritual expression.
The laws would have given the Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA) the ability to impose massive fines, as much as 5% of their global revenues, on social media platforms that allowed the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation on their services.
However, lobby groups said that the bill’s definitions of misinformation and disinformation were far too broad, and will have allowed the federal government to silence legitimate beliefs and opinions that weren’t aligned with its own positions.
Despite the initial laws going through a lengthy means of amendment, concerns remained, with the Australian Human Rights Commission saying in October that “although there have been improvements to the bill, freedom of expression shouldn’t be sufficiently protected”.
Faith groups welcomed the news of the bill’s withdrawal, with Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) CEO Michelle Pearse calling it “a victory for all Australians”.
“The Government proposed giving ACMA the authority to issue heavy penalties to digital platforms that did not remove misinformation,” Pearse said.
“The problem, nonetheless, was that the Government itself would define what constitutes misinformation, effectively making it the arbiter of truth.”
ACL had vocally criticised the bill, lobbying crossbench senators personally and running a national online campaign calling attention to the risks posed by the laws.
“Defeating this Bill is a victory for each freedom of speech and freedom of faith,” Pearse said.
“Christians are sometimes disproportionately censored for expressing views that challenge mainstream narratives, similar to those on gender ideology.”
Minister Rowland said the federal government would now shift its focus to other online issues of safety, with reforms planned to tackle issues similar to deepfakes, truth in political promoting, and the regulation of artificial intelligence.
“It is incumbent on democracies to grapple with these challenges in a way that puts the interests of residents first,” she said.
Ms Pearce welcomed the announcement of the change in priorities from the federal government.
“We are pleased to see the Government now shifting their focus towards addressing non-consensual deepfakes and sexually explicit content which is objectively harmful.”
