Strong debate has emerged around measures to combat disinformation. 

The recently-unveiled Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation bill is designed to fight the spread of false information on digital platforms. 

But the bill’s exposure draft has triggered a flurry of controversy, raising questions about freedom of speech Down Under.

The proposed legislation seeks to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, granting the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) enhanced powers over digital platforms. 

These powers come into play when digital content is deemed “false, misleading, or deceptive” and is reasonably likely to cause harm. 

According to Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, this move aims to balance transparency with the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Importantly, the bill does not empower ACMA to remove content but allows it to establish an enforceable industry code when self-regulation proves insufficient in addressing misinformation and disinformation.

In 2017, then-Treasurer Scott Morrison initiated an ACCC review of digital platforms, focusing on their impact on news supply and content creators. 

The ACCC recommended a “digital platforms code” to combat misleading news, leading to a voluntary code of conduct in 2021. ACMA began monitoring platform compliance. 

In March 2022, the Morrison government promised to enhance ACMA’s powers, a pledge it later fulfilled.

Labor's involvement emerged in June, and in January 2023, Michelle Rowland unveiled similar plans to boost ACMA’s regulatory authority.

Since the release of the exposure draft in June 2023, various voices, including Sky News commentator Peta Credlin, Liberal Senator Clare Chandler, and the Australian Christian Lobby, have criticised the bill as a threat to free speech and democracy. 

The bill's opponents argue that it would lead to the “cancellation” of freedom of speech.

Concerns about the bill's broad definitions of misinformation and disinformation have also arisen from the Human Rights Commission, the Australian Law Council, and the Media, Entertainment, and Arts Alliance. 

The definition of “serious harm” and the criteria for identifying a “professional” journalist remain points of contention.

But the exposure draft looks unlikely to be the final version, as Michelle Rowland says consultation is ongoing. 

The bill does not grant powers to remove content, a role reserved for the e-Safety commissioner. Existing content moderation has not significantly impacted free speech, with platforms already removing numerous posts under the voluntary code.

Rowland says she plans to introduce the legislation by year-end, but its passage is far from certain.