My Letter: The Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024

Australia’s new Misinformation Bill threatens free speech, echoing Orwell’s 1984 with government control over truth. Is this censorship a step towards totalitarianism? Freedom or control—what's next?

Dear Committee Secretary,

I am writing to submit my views on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This bill represents a dangerous overreach by the Australian Government, essentially establishing a ‘Ministry of Truth’ to dictate what constitutes misinformation or disinformation. Such sweeping powers, under the guise of protecting public discourse, threaten the foundational principles of free expression and open debate, which are the bedrock of a democratic society.

For most of my adult life, I have dedicated myself to the service of my community at local, state, and federal levels. As a young man, I enlisted in the Australian Army and was deployed overseas to Southeast Asia. While the government of the day never publicly stated the true nature of our mission, it was understood that our primary objective was to thwart the spread of communism. We were on the front lines of a global ideological struggle, fighting against a regime that used censorship and the suppression of dissent as tools of control. It is deeply concerning to observe the striking similarities between the authoritarian measures we opposed abroad and the proposals set forth in this bill. The bill’s censorship mechanisms bear the hallmarks of Marxist-style governance—methods of stifling dissent and consolidating power under the pretext of protecting the public good. This is a direct affront to the principles of a free and open society, where individuals are meant to engage in discourse without fear of governmental retribution or control.

For over thirty years, I have served as an emergency services officer, participating in nearly every major catastrophe in my state. These roles place me at the coalface of disaster, and I, along with countless others, risk life and limb to protect the community. It is with immense sadness that I now feel compelled to withhold my surname in correspondence such as this. The mere notion that individuals like myself, who have dedicated their lives to the service of others, could face governmental reprisal for expressing dissenting views is indicative of the dangerous path this legislation could pave. Today, it is a matter of controlling speech under the guise of public safety; tomorrow, those who persist in exercising their right to free speech may find themselves herded into what can only be described as reeducation camps—a dystopian prospect that eerily mirrors the trajectory of regimes we have long opposed.

We already see the framework for this control emerging. The implementation of a Digital ID system and the impending Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) rollout threaten to centralize power further. When cash is eliminated, the government gains unprecedented control over financial transactions and, by extension, individual freedom. Marxist regimes have long dreamed of such mechanisms: censorship combined with the ability to control citizens through identification and monetary systems. The tools for such control are now at the government’s disposal, and this legislation adds another layer of control under the guise of combating disinformation. How is this tyranny being introduced? With the false promise of keeping everyone ‘safe.’ Such promises have historically been used by authoritarian governments to justify infringing upon individual liberties, and it is a promise I, along with many others, reject.

Civil rights, including the right to vote and the presumption of innocence (as enshrined in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), access to government services, and the right to a public education, are guarantees of equal social opportunities and protection under the law. It is imperative that young people understand their responsibilities in these areas. This bill would undoubtedly impact these freedoms, as it seeks to suppress legitimate political discourse—a key pillar of our democracy.

As Senator Michaelia Cash aptly noted, “this new version of the Albanese Government’s Bill allows the Minister to personally order misinformation investigations and hearings. These are extraordinary provisions in a democracy.” She further highlighted the troubling inconsistency in the bill: “If you’re an academic, something you say can’t be misinformation. But if you’re an ordinary Australian who disagrees with an academic, it can be considered misinformation. The Bill allows the honestly held opinions of ordinary Australians to be treated as ‘misinformation.’”

This is fundamentally an issue of free speech. Articles 5 & 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly protect against arbitrary restrictions. Who is the Government to dictate what is factually true or false? The Government has misled the public before—on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, on the Voice referendum, and on broader claims of protecting public welfare. Articles 9 & 10 of the Declaration assert that no government should be the arbiter of truth, as this overreach challenges human rights, particularly the right to follow one’s own conscience. Moreover, this encroachment undermines the moral and ethical beliefs rooted in Australia’s Judeo-Christian values—a cultural foundation that I, and many others, hold dear.

Furthermore, how can the Government justify exempting media entities from this legislation while simultaneously acknowledging their complicity in spreading disinformation on the government’s behalf? The media, which the bill dubs ‘professional,’ has repeatedly participated in promoting government-endorsed narratives that have proven to be false. No government, media, or academic body should possess the power to define what constitutes misinformation. Such decisions belong to the people, within the framework of our Constitution, which can only be altered through a Referendum.

Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to hold and express opinions independently of government oversight. Every time the Government claims it is acting in the interest of public safety, it must be remembered that no one has voted for these intrusions. This is yet another form of misinformation perpetuated by the Government itself. Article 8 ensures that citizens have the right to seek an effective remedy for violations of constitutional rights, and Article 11 Section 1 guarantees the presumption of innocence. These fundamental freedoms are at risk under this legislation.

I urge you, Committee Secretary, to protect our freedoms and reject this bill. It does nothing to restore the already fragile trust between the Government and the people. Rather, it further undermines it. If the Government is sincere in its desire to rebuild trust, it must cease infringing upon our liberties. Protecting Australians’ freedom of speech, as enshrined in law, is the only path forward in a truly democratic society.

Please refer to Articles 7, 8, & 11 Section 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I trust that you will do what is both lawful and just.

Regards,