Mis/disinformation legislation puts Government credibility at risk

The 2024 Bill prioritises speech suppression over freedom of expression, creating significant risks for public trust.

David Kennedy · Venture Insights20 September 2024Period: September 20244 min read

Last updated 6 May 2026

2024→

Year of the current Misinformation and Disinformation Bill draft

2023→

Year the Australian Human Rights Commission highlighted four problems with the exposure draft

Locked

Companies covered:

Abstract

This report analyses the Australian Government’s Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024, highlighting critical risks to government credibility and freedom of speech. While the Bill introduces transparency through ACMA's information-gathering powers, it establishes a controversial framework where the regulator acts as an arbiter of truth. The analysis focuses on the broad definitions of harm and the potential for legitimate, though controversial, discourse to be suppressed, ultimately threatening public trust in democratic institutions and regulatory bodies.

Key Takeaways

The 2024 Bill risks government credibility by positioning the ACMA as an arbiter of truth in controversial public debates.
New definitions require content to be 'reasonably verifiable' as false, but fail to define who performs the verification or how.
The harm threshold remains overly broad, capturing content that merely 'contributes' to harm without a defined minimum impact.

Create a free account to keep reading

stakeholder implications · PDF download

Frequently Asked Questions

The 2024 Bill centralizes enforcement power in one body, the ACMA, which will act as the final arbiter of truth for online content. Platforms must navigate a harm threshold that requires zero minimum level of contribution to be triggered, significantly increasing the risk of over-censorship to ensure compliance.

The legislation requires content to be 'reasonably verifiable' as false, yet the 2024 draft provides no definition of the verification process or the parties authorized to perform it. This ambiguity persists despite the Australian Human Rights Commission identifying four fundamental problems with the initial 2023 exposure draft.

No, the 2024 framework removes the automatic exclusion for government-authorised content, meaning official communications are now subject to the same 'reasonably verifiable' standards as private speech. While this increases state accountability, the Bill introduces new broad exemptions specifically for academic and religious discourse.

The ACMA currently lacks a specific remit to protect against unreasonable speech restrictions, leaving platforms legally and reputationally exposed when suppressing controversial ideas. Case studies like the COVID-19 'lab leak' theory suggest that the current zero-minimum harm threshold will likely force the removal of legitimate ideas that are later proven to be plausible.

Abstract

Key Takeaways

The 2024 Bill risks government credibility by positioning the ACMA as an arbiter of truth in controversial public debates.

New definitions require content to be 'reasonably verifiable' as false, but fail to define who performs the verification or how.

The harm threshold remains overly broad, capturing content that merely 'contributes' to harm without a defined minimum impact.

Frequently Asked Questions

Abstract

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Unlock the full report

Free

Lite

Team

Abstract

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Unlock the full report

Free

Lite

Team