This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Transport & communications
Big online platforms in Australia would have to publish a risk report, explain their misinformation policies, and show how they will help users spot false or deceptive content.
Seriously harmful false and deceptive content spreads quickly online, and Australia’s voluntary industry code left some major digital platforms outside the system. The bill lets ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. require platforms to assess and report risks, publish their misinformation policies, help users spot false content, and face enforceable codes or standards if voluntary rules fall short.
Australia was already relying on a voluntary misinformation code, but the Albanese government said in January 2023 that major platforms could still sit outside that system while harmful false content spread quickly online, leading it to develop a stronger ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. enforcement scheme. After a June 2024 draft triggered heavy free speech criticism and tens of thousands of submissions, the government introduced a revised bill in September, the House passed it with amendments in November, and it was then discharged from the Senate Notice Paper later that month without becoming law.
The main case against the bill was that it gave ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. and ministers overly broad power over online speech, creating a real risk of censorship, self-censorship and lawful political or religious views being swept up. That criticism was pushed strongly by Coalition and National MPs, while some crossbench support remained conditional on tighter safeguards, review and access provisions.
Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It was supported by Labor, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
4 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
74 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Big online platforms in Australia would have to publish a risk report, explain their misinformation policies, and show how they will help users spot false or deceptive content.
The Australian Communications and Media AuthorityThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. could demand information and records from platforms, approve industry rules, and step in with mandatory standards if industry rules do not protect Australians well enough.
The bill targets false or deceptive online content only when it is likely to cause serious harmThe threshold the bill uses to limit regulation to content linked to major risks like election interference, public health harm, violence, emergency disruption, or economic damage. in Australia, such as to elections, public health, targeted groups, physical safety, emergency services, or the economy.
The bill would not let the Australian Communications and Media AuthorityThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. remove ordinary posts or ban accounts directly, and it excludes professional news, parody, satire, and reasonable academic, artistic, scientific, or religious content.
Platforms that break these rules could face warnings, directions, infringement notices, injunctions, and civil penalties, and the framework would be reviewed every three years for its impact on free expression.
Subclause 17(1) imposes a requirement on digital communications platform providers to ensure certain information is both available to end-users on the platform and also publicly accessible to others on the digital communications platform provider’s website. The intention is that key information pertaining to misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms, and the way in which digital communications platform providers are addressing risks relating to misinformation and disinformation, should be made available and accessible to the public.Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) explanatory memorandum
The new Schedule 9 contains provisions in relation to misinformation and disinformation, which enable the ACMA to:Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) explanatory memorandum
Digital communications platform providers will continue to be responsible for the content they host and promote to users. The definitions of misinformation, disinformation and serious harm set out the types of societal harms the powers are designed to address, and ensure that the ACMA’s use of its powers, and the platforms’ systems and processes, are targeted at serious harms with significant and far-reaching implications for the Australian community or a segment thereof, or severe consequences for an individual in Australia. The types of harm are: harm to the operation or integrity of an electoral or referendum process in Australia; harm to public health in Australia including the efficacy of preventative health measures; vilification of a group in Australian society; intentionally inflicted physical injury to an individual; imminent damage to critical infrastructure or disruption of emergency services in Australia; and imminent harm to the Australian economy.Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) explanatory memorandum
The ACMA’s powers are directed to digital communications platform providers and not individual end-users. The Bill aims to incentivise digital communications platform providers to have robust systems and measures in place to address misinformation and disinformation on their services. It does not provide the ACMA with powers to directly regulate content on digital communications platforms itself. Nor does it empower the ACMA to require digital communications platform providers to remove content or block end-users from their services, except in the case of content that involves inauthentic behaviour (for example, coordinated bots, troll farms or fake accounts). The ACMA would not have a direct takedown power for individual content or particular accounts.Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) explanatory memorandum
It is expected that the ACMA will use a graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach to non-compliance and enforcement, including by issuing formal warnings, remedial directions and infringement notices, through to applying for injunctions and civil penalties, depending on the particular provision. The Bill provides scope for key decisions by the ACMA to be reviewed in the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) and the amount of civil penalties payable by digital communications platform providers for breaches of approved misinformation codes and misinformation standards would be determined by the courts (up to the maximum amounts specified in the Bill).Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia was already relying on a voluntary misinformation code, but the Albanese government said in January 2023 that major platforms could still sit outside that system while harmful false content spread quickly online, leading it to develop a stronger ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. enforcement scheme. After a June 2024 draft triggered heavy free speech criticism and tens of thousands of submissions, the government introduced a revised bill in September, the House passed it with amendments in November, and it was then discharged from the Senate Notice Paper later that month without becoming law.
Government commits to give ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. stronger misinformation powers
In his second reading speech, the minister said the Albanese government had committed in January 2023 to new ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. powers because voluntary platform efforts were not providing enough transparency and accountability.
Hansard ↗Exposure draft of the misinformation bill draws mass criticism
An October 2024 speech recorded that the government's June draft prompted about 24,000 submissions, with critics arguing it threatened free speech and forcing the proposal into a more contested political fight.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the revised misinformation bill
The minister introduced the bill as the response to seriously harmful online misinformation and disinformationFalse, misleading, or deceptive online content that the bill treats as a problem only when it could lead to serious harm in Australia., saying it would let ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. oversee platform risk reporting and step in if industry rules failed.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill after government amendments
The House agreed to the bill's second and third readings on the same day after considering government amendment packages, sending the measure on to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill is discharged from the Senate Notice Paper
The Senate discharged the bill from the Notice Paper, ending its progress and leaving Australia without the new ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. misinformation regime proposed in the bill.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (19/09/2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (25/11/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 78 to 57.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
Recorded vote: 79 to 57.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it gave ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. and ministers overly broad power over online speech, creating a real risk of censorship, self-censorship and lawful political or religious views being swept up. That criticism was pushed strongly by Coalition and National MPs, while some crossbench support remained conditional on tighter safeguards, review and access provisions.
Some criticism focused on safeguards and drafting rather than rejecting action on harmful misinformation itself.
Too much power over speech
Critics argued the bill handed ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. and the minister sweeping power to police online speech, with the practical effect of letting government pressure platforms into censoring lawful debate.
Definitions could chill legitimate views
Opponents said the bill's definitions and serious-harm framework were still broad or uncertain enough to catch honestly held opinions, religious expression, whistleblowing and legitimate political argument, encouraging platforms to over-remove content to avoid penalties.
Safeguards and coverage were seen as incomplete
Some MPs who were not opposed in principle still warned the bill needed stronger safeguards, such as independent review and better researcher access, and others argued it was too piecemeal because it left out professional news content and broader media-system problems.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 79 to 57. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 78 to 57. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Defeated 5 to 60. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement vote, so it was a political position on the bill rather than a direct change to the law. The amendment was defeated.
Passed 86 to 54. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
These amendments materially improved the bill’s transparency and oversight settings and were carried, so they became part of the bill as passed by the House on 7 November 2024.
Government amendments strengthen ACMA powers by creating data access schemes that require platform providers to give approved independent researchers access to platform data for identifying, assessing and mitigating misinformation and disinformation risks.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Michelle Rowland supports the bill and says it delivers the government’s commitment to give ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. stronger powers to increase transparency and accountability around harmful misinformation and disinformationFalse, misleading, or deceptive online content that the bill treats as a problem only when it could lead to serious harm in Australia..
Read in Hansard ↗Coleman opposes the bill and says the coalition will fight it because he считает it a shameful attack on democracy and free speech.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan says she will back the bill, but argues it is too piecemeal and will not be enough to protect democracy unless Australia also fixes the wider failures of mainstream media regulation.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink says she is inclined to support the bill as a first step against harmful misinformation and disinformationFalse, misleading, or deceptive online content that the bill treats as a problem only when it could lead to serious harm in Australia., but only if it is improved with amendments on an independent review and better academic access to information.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
6 speakers · 7 contributions · 6 support
“The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 answers that call. It amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and makes consequential changes to related legislation, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021. Through these amendments, the bill establishes a regulatory framework that empowers ACMA to oversee digital platforms and ensure that they responsibly manage misinformation and disinformation on their services.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Digital platforms need to step up to protect Australian users from the threat of seriously harmful mis- and disinformation online. This Bill seeks to strengthen the voluntary code by providing a regulatory backstop.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michelle Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Michelle Rowland supports the bill and says it delivers the government’s commitment to give ACMAThe regulator that would oversee the platform rules, ask for information, approve industry codes, and step in with standards if the industry code was not good enough. stronger powers to increase transparency and accountability around harmful misinformation and disinformationFalse, misleading, or deceptive online content that the bill treats as a problem only when it could lead to serious harm in Australia.. She argues it is needed because the voluntary codeThe voluntary industry code that platforms were already using, which the bill says was not covering all major services well enough. is not enough, while the bill still protects freedom of expression through a high harm threshold and system-level regulation.
“This bill delivers on that promise following an extensive public consultation process on the draft legislation to ensure the ACMA powers meet community and industry expectations.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Michelle Rowland supports the bill, saying it will make digital platforms more transparent and accountable for seriously harmful misinformation and disinformationFalse, misleading, or deceptive online content that the bill treats as a problem only when it could lead to serious harm in Australia. while still protecting freedom of expression. She says the government’s amendments and ongoing Senate scrutiny will further refine the bill so Australians are safer online.
“Misinformation and disinformation pose a significant threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. This bill will increase the transparency and accountability of the actions of digital platforms in relation to seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation, while balancing the freedom of expression that is at the very core of our democracy.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“At the heart of this legislation is the acknowledgement of the serious risk that misinformation and disinformation have to individuals, groups and our society as a whole. We must act to protect Australians from the blight of fake news, and these amendments provide safeguards while not affecting freedom of expression. So I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill presents a proactive step towards safeguarding our citizens, safeguarding our democratic processes and ensuring the integrity of information that reaches each and every one of us.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does not jeopardise people's individual rights to freedom of expression. Rather, it is focused on taking action to ensure that digital platforms have measures in place to stop the rapid spread of seriously harmful mis- and disinformation. That sort of information poses a significant threat to the wellbeing of people of all ages and challenges the functioning of societies around the world.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
26 speakers · 27 contributions · 26 oppose
“This bill is a shameful attack on our democracy. It should never have been put forward. It is an appalling reflection on this government that it has been put forward. I would encourage anyone who's listening tonight to try and read this legislation. You'll be shocked by what you see in it. The coalition will fight this every step of the way because this bill belongs in the bin.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government, of course, refuses to listen. The Labor government is pushing ahead with misinformation and disinformation, saying that the Australian people are generating the misinformation and disinformation. The fact that elections, referendums—we've just had one—public health preventive health measures and imminent harm to the economy or financial markets are just some of the topics that will be covered by this bill is chilling. It ought to be chilling to people in Australia today. We've enjoyed the ability to speak freely, to think freely and to worship freely. Each one of these bills that gets passed will see more and more of these litigated cases from government bureaucrats, which will curtail our freedom of speech. So today I rise with my colleagues to oppose it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Ultimately, I think this comes down to a significant ideological difference between us and the government. We have faith in the Australian people to sort fact from fiction. We believe the Australian people should be the arbiters of what is truth when it comes to any public discourse in this country. We have faith that they've got the capacity to do that. We do not support this bill. This is a massive overreach. We ask the government to reconsider this. Go back to the drawing board.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We are back there, and I am happy to stand against the government on this bill. I am happy to find myself standing with Mill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am proud that we, the coalition, oppose this Draconian legislation and will repeal it in government because freedom of speech is an absolute fundamental to our democracy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Our democracy has been formed on freedom of speech, and the coalition will always fight for this fundamental right of our people. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' is a statement often attributed to Voltaire, a 16th-century freedom-of-speech advocate. The idea of protecting freedom of speech has been around for a very long time, and we should, as a parliament, continue the defence of freedom of speech. This is an appalling bill, and it should be opposed and condemned at all costs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At a time when Australians expect their government to be doing everything in its power to address the cost-of living-crisis that they face, Labor is instead trying to control the public debate. This is one of the most egregious pieces of legislation I've seen in my 2½ years in this place, and the coalition will not be supporting this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. There has undoubtedly been a rise in online harm, whether it's bullying, deepfakes or the abhorrent spreading of footage after violent attacks. As lawmakers, we have a duty to keep Australians safe from online harm, but this must always be balanced with the value of free speech that has underpinned our democracy. Democracy is moved forward when we can debate issues and have opinions heard. No great nation has ever been built by a government that considers itself the arbiter of all truth.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In all of the circumstances, I join with other members of the coalition in saying that I cannot support the legislation as it's currently drafted.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill has no rightful place in Australia. The coalition stands in strong opposition to it, and a coalition government will repeal it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I join the consistent calls of my colleagues in comprehensively condemning and rejecting this legislation that the government has put forward, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. Obviously, I indicate that I don't support the bill being read a second time. This might be the worst piece of legislation that I've ever made a contribution on in my six years as a member of this chamber, and that's saying something, because this government has had some other shockers. But never have we had one that is really about undermining the fundamentals of this very building that we're in and the democracy that we, of course, are so honoured to participate in.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill will obviously pass this chamber in the next 24 hours because Labor have no choice. Labor have to lock in, and they can't have a difference of opinion in this chamber and across the floor. But shame on this government. You have started us down a very slippery slope where some faceless bureaucrat, who we will now call the ministry for truth, will decide what individuals can or can't say on social media platforms. When this legislation goes through, I think it's probably the saddest day and the saddest piece of legislation I've seen for the freedoms and liberties of our country, and everyone who votes for this should be absolutely ashamed of what they are doing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I vigorously oppose this bill and the Albanese government's attempt to tell Australians what they can and cannot say.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of law, our human rights obligations and the separation of church and state. From philosophical, public procedural and policy perspectives, this bill misses the mark completely. It is philosophically un-Australian, and it must be rejected.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In wrapping up, I will not be supporting this bill. Freedom of speech is fundamental to our democratic society, and providing for widespread censorship is, quite frankly, un-Australian and dangerous. As French writer and philosopher Voltaire said, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' I urge everyone across the chamber to vote against this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is why I will not be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think this bill will restrict Australians' free expression, and I think it will diminish our democracy, and that is why I oppose the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That said, this is bad legislation. This is a bad bill. It needs to be rejected. It must be rejected for the sake of freedom of speech in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The difficulty with this bill and the real harm in this proposal is that if it's passed—and it will, no doubt, given the numbers here and in the other place—and becomes law then when someone, potentially from the Ministry of Truth, the truth police, says to me, 'You can't say that,' I'm going to actually have to say, 'Yes, sir; I know.' When this bill is law, which we will rescind when we come into government, then that will be a sad day.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is an absolute disgrace, an abject failure of governance and a threat to the democracy that this country is proud of and has been built on for the last 120-odd years. We should oppose this with every fibre of our being, because it will not make this country a better place; it will make it a worse place, not just for this current generation but for the generations to come. I oppose this bill with every fibre of my being.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will oppose this bill because the government keeps getting it wrong. The government tried to bring in a first bill and had to withdraw it because it was such a bad piece of legislation. They've now brought in this second bill, and, once again, if they were going to do the right thing by the Australian people, they would pull this bill as well, because there are so many fundamental flaws in it that it's not funny.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to add my voice and objection to the bill before the House, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. We've heard from numerous speakers about this bill and the nature of it. I must say that I think that, in my eight years of coming to this place and serving the people of Wide Bay, this is one of the most dangerous bills and most grievous attacks on what we hold close in our nation and what makes us great as a nation—the element of free speech.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So it's too dangerous for me. We are a free democracy. I think we need to find another way to crack this nut, if that's what is required. So I will be voting against this along with my colleagues, and I commend that case to the parliament.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition stands firmly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill because we believe in the right of free speech and we'll fight to defend those rights each and every day while we have breath in our bodies. My constituents of Dawson are standing with me on this one. Bin the bill; it is deadset wrong.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Barnaby Joyce on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Barnaby Joyce opposes the bill and says the government should remove it from the agenda, warning that it gives ministers too much power to decide what Australians can believe and read. He says the National Party will campaign strongly against it if the government keeps it in place.
“You can see where our concern is with this, and I think the prudent thing to do is to reaffirm to the Australian people that you have no intention of going into that space. You show you have no intention of going into that space by removing this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, from the agenda.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Barnaby Joyce speaks to the bill, focusing on where do we start. The speech also says that with this misinformation bill, at the start, you hear stuff where there's some sense of credibility, where you say, 'Well, if you're stirring up young girls on body image and it's bringing about real afflictions'—and that does happen—'then I suppose it's a good thing,' but then, when you look at the bill, you see that it doesn't deal with that issue.
“Where do we start? As they say, opinions are like noses; everybody's got one.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 3 support · 4 oppose · 2 mixed
“In closing, the risk that mis- and disinformation poses to this country is so great that I do believe we need to start somewhere. Perfect should not be the enemy of good. So, while there is certainly room for improvement in this legislation, particularly with regard to an independent review and academic access to information, with some amendments I will be inclined to support this legislation as a first step to reduce the spread of harmful mis- and disinformation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In its current form, with these limitations, this legislation will not do enough. It won't protect democracy in this country, as we so desperately need. It will be just another half-effective half-measure; an inch when we need a mile; a gesture when we need a stand.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I've had many a discussion with the minister, who has indicated that a clear statement of ministerial expectation will be made that will set the bar high for ACMA to act. The minister said there will be care taken to make sure that the expanded role meets public expectations of integrity and transparency. So while I have concerns, I commend the bill to the House as an important guardrail against misinformation and disinformation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For the moment, I'm not entirely satisfied that either the definitions or the transparency measures in this bill are adequate, and discussions with the government on these matters are ongoing. It's clear, though, that competition alone has not aligned digital platforms with the best interests of society. The misaligned commercial incentive structures which guide the logic of big tech's algorithms are why we're glued to our screens, why are feeds make us compare our lives with our friends, why political content polarises and outrages us, why Cambridge Analytica was able to exploit our divisions, and why nation states can cynically weaponise our open but fractured information landscapes. Surely, there is a better approach.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With these limitations on power and the agreed amendments, I think that there's an acceptable balance between the right to freedom of expression against other rights—although I would be open to supporting additional amendments that put further safeguards in place for freedom of expression, and I look forward to seeing how the bill operates at its first review. In the interests of combating online misinformation and disinformation that causes serious harm, and consistent with the stated desire from my community in our online safety survey, I intend to support the bill in its amended form. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I do think that poses a very significant threat to our country as well. This is a situation where we have to get the balance right and, I'm afraid, with the contested perspective on this bill, at this stage, with the bill in its current form, I don't think the bill has got that balance right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“No-one wants to see the spread of false or misleading information, but I don't think people want us to entertain the censorship of ideas either. When governments become the arbiter of truth, we start on a perilous path that must be avoided accordingly. I most certainly will not be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill cannot be supported. I wish to thank all of the residents of our area who have let me know about their issues with it. That's the importance of our democracy: everybody gets a say—everyone around Australia gets a say, as the member for Wide Bay was just stating to this House. Australians all around our nation are very concerned that they won't be able to have that free and fair say in our society during elections, in participating in our democracy, and I think that is extremely concerning. That's why I can't support this bill. Because of all of those serious concerns I have about the adverse impacts of this bill and the shocking effects and impacts it will have on free speech, I will not support it. I will be voting against it—it's a no from me.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill seeks to put some form of policing into this new world order. It can't. The Australian government cannot reach beyond these shores and it shouldn't attempt to reach into the minds of people seeking to express their views, however wrong they might be.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 78 to 57.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 79 to 57.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Discharged from Notice Paper
Discharged from Notice Paper
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (25/11/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (19 Sept 2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (25 Nov 2024)
APH bill page notes
