Labor’s censorship descent ‘a slippery slope’: Richard Alston

Former communications minister Richard Alston raises alarm over the impact Labor’s proposed laws on misinformation will have on free speech.

Former communications minister Richard Alston has raised concerns about the impact Labor’s proposed laws on misinformation would have on free speech, saying the descent into censorship was a “slippery slope”.

Mr Alston, communications minister under John Howard from 1996 to 2003, said the idea that the media watchdog should have a major role in policing the spread of misinformation online was concerning as it would be “susceptible to government influence”.

The bill would grant the Australian Communications and Media Authority powers to fine social media giants millions of dollars for misinformation and content it deems “harmful”. It has been criticised by the Coalition, tech giants and senior lawyers.

“Governments have the biggest vested interest of all in closing down speech they don’t agree with,” Mr Alston said.

“I mean if you look at the voice, the proponents haven’t hesitated to denigrate ­opponents in very strong language. I think the best solution is to ensure that people are held accountable as much as possible so you don‘t want any posts published that aren’t traceable to the sender and the platforms can be made responsible for that. But otherwise, I think the best disinfectant is to have both sides of the case.”

Under the proposal, digital platforms will continue to be responsible for moderating content but the regulator will be able to seek information from tech companies about the measures they are taking to address misinformation and disinformation.

Examples of harmful misinformation provided with the draft bill included false claims that undermined the impartiality of the Australian Electoral Commission ahead of an election, misinformation that led people to ingest bleach to treat an infection and spreading misinformation about water-saving measures during a drought.

Mr Alston said there were already strong defamation laws and legal protections in place in Australia against hate speech, sharing misleading or dangerous medical advice and other areas captured by the bill.

“Health, national security, defamation, blasphemy – there are certain restrictions already; you do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre,” he said.

“That’s always been the golden rule. But having said that, there are a lot of things that people disagree with and the best way to deal with that is to refute them. So I’m very reluctant to contemplate any body that is set up to review this and particularly a government body, which is susceptible to government influence. Government tells them what they think is right and the organisation’s under enormous pressure to agree.”

Mr Alston said he had seen a worrying rise in attacks on free speech in Australia, describing censorship as a “lazy way to win an argument” by shutting down your opponent. “Absolutely, de-platforming and all sorts of other things are very common. I think the tide will turn,” he said.

“Right now I think there are activists who think this is a much easier way of winning an argument than having to mount a case.

“I mean, any fool could march around with a placard, it’s another thing to argue your case and it’s a lazy way of having a discussion by closing down your opponents – you win by default.”