Prominent Doctor Raises Concerns Over Misinformation Bill

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Nick Coatsworth, an infectious diseases and respiratory expert who played a key role in advising the Australian government during the COVID-19 pandemic, has called on people to make submissions against a misinformation bill aimed at regulating content considered misinformation online.

Coatsworth, who also appears as the Nine Network’s medical expert, expressed concerns that the new legislation could restrict important discussions on health policy.

“In the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill’s definition of ’serious harm,‘ the following phrase is used: ’harm to public health in Australia, including to the efficacy of preventative health measures in Australia',” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

He raised the concern that legitimate debate on public health policy might be misclassified as misinformation.

“It’s quite astonishing to me that after the pandemic, when we are all becoming acutely aware of ‘facts’ that changed over the course of the pandemic—including the nature of airborne spread, amongst many others—that we would find our parliament debating a Bill where any number of legitimate concerns about public health policy could be branded misinformation by the government or the scientific orthodoxy of the moment,” he said.

Coatsworth added that limiting debate through the “weaponisation” of misinformation could potentially pose greater risks than misinformation itself.

“Let’s teach our kids critical thought and how to question and debate, not how to dismiss or reject other’s opinions or ideas with random accusations of misinformation,” he said.

“I'd strongly encourage Australians to do something they may never have done before and submit to the Senate Inquiry. Even if it’s a short paragraph expressing deep concern about what this Bill represents.”

About the Bill

The new legislation, once passed, would grant the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) new powers to tackle perceived misinformation online.

Social media companies would be required to uphold core transparency obligations including publishing a “media literacy plan” and their policies regarding misinformation and disinformation.

The ACMA would have information-gathering and record-keeping powers that would allow them to expose perceived misinformation on digital platforms.

The authority would also have the power to approve codes of conduct, to make standards for social media companies to follow, and to have greater general oversight.

Digital platforms found to be in breach of ACMA rules would be liable for significant fines.

Coatsworth’s concerns about the Bill have been echoed by other groups, including the Victorian Bar Council, and the Media, Entertainment, and Arts Alliance, and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

The AHRC, in a public submission against the Bill while it was still in its draft stages, highlighted concerns around the broad definitions of harmful content, warning that they could have implications for freedom of expression.

The problem with the proposed legislation, according to the commission, was that it targets content “reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm”—but the AHRC says the definition and threshold of what constitutes harm varies.

The AHRC also considers it dangerous to allow one overseeing body to have the sole say in what constitutes misinformation and what does not, which would ultimately grant the government full immunity from ever being accused of misinformation.

“If we fail to ensure robust safeguards for freedom of expression online, then the measures taken to combat misinformation and disinformation could themselves risk undermining Australia’s democracy and freedoms,” Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay said.

Examples of Harm

The government offers its own examples of what could constitute “harm” in the online space.

It lists categories including hatred against a group in Australia based on characteristics such as race or gender, disruption of public order, harm to the democratic process, harm to health, harm to the environment, and economic harm.

One example of economic harm given is “disinformation from a foreign actor targeting local producers in favour of imported goods.”

However, the examples also include vague scenarios, such as “misinformation about water saving measures during a prolonged drought period in a major town or city” in the environmental category and “misinformation undermining the impartiality of an Australian electoral management body ahead of an election or referendum” under the category of harm to the democratic process.

‘Keeping Australians Safe’

Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland has emphasised the importance of addressing misinformation, saying that a survey by the Australian Media Literacy Alliance found that 80 percent of Australians were concerned about misinformation online.

“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and well-being of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society, and economy. Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option,” she said.

“The government is committed to keeping Australians safe online, and that includes ensuring the ACMA has the powers it needs to hold digital platforms to account for misinformation and disinformation on their services.”