Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland, has called on the Opposition and Green to engage on an alternative solution to addressing misinformation online after the two parties last week voted down the Federal Government's Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill in parliament last week.

"Seriously harmful mis and disinformation poses a threat to safety, the integrity of elections, democracy and national security, and 80% of Australians want action. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 would combat seriously harmful content on digital platforms, while maintaining strong protections for freedom of speech," Rowland said.

"Members of the House crossbench worked constructively with the Government over the latter half of this year to refine the Bill and support its passage through the House. The Coalition committed to legislating safeguards when in Government, but chose to place partisanship above any attempt to navigate the public interest. Based on public statements and engagements with Senators, it is clear that there is no pathway to legislate this proposal through the Senate. The Government will not proceed with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024.

"The Government invites all Parliamentarians to work with us on other proposals to strengthen democratic institutions and keep Australians safe online, while safeguarding values like freedom of expression. It is incumbent on democracies to grapple with these challenges in a way that puts the interests of citizens first."

The bill proposed rules to address harmful content, provide transparency, and empower users with complaints and dispute procedures. However, the Greens opposed the bill, citing concerns that it doesn't effectively tackle the harms of misinformation and disinformation, and could have unintended consequences.

"We are concerned this bill doesn't actually do what it needs to do when it comes to stopping the deliberate mass distribution of false and harmful information," said Greens Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young. "It gives media moguls like Murdoch an exemption and hands over responsibility to tech companies and billionaires like Elon Musk to determine what is true or false under ambiguous definitions. It does little to stop non-human actors like bots flooding social media and boosting dangerous algorithms."

Hanson-Young noted that the Government had failed to addressed strong community opposition to the bill, as well as "serious concerns" raised by experts.

Alternative proposals highlighted by Rowland include legislating to strengthen offences targeting the sharing of non-consensual and sexually explicit deep fakes, enforcing truth in political advertising for elections, and progressing reforms on regulation of Artificial Intelligence.

"Mis and disinformation is an evolving threat and no single action is a perfect solution, but we must continue to improve safeguards to ensure digital platforms offer better protections for Australians," said Rowland.

The bill's opposition means it cannot pass the Senate. Shadow Minister for Communications, David Coleman, stated that the bill did not respect the fundamental right of Australians to free speech and could lead to excessive censorship by digital platforms.

"The Bill gives digital platforms an enormous financial incentive to censor statements made by everyday Australians. If the Government decides that they have not censored enough "misinformation", they can face large fines. Digital platforms don't care about the free speech of Australians - but they do care about their profits. So they will censor large amounts of material in order to avoid the risk of fines. Digital platforms cannot be fined for censoring too much material - but they can be fined if they do not censor enough material," Coleman said.

"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 the free speech of Australians."