Free-speech advocates are claiming a win after the government walked away from its proposed anti disinformation legislation, conceding that – despite its claims of widespread public support – it had become clear there was “no pathway to legislate” the proposal through the Senate.

Although months of bipartisan co-operation in the House had seen broad support for the proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland said the Opposition ultimately dug in.

“The Coalition committed to legislating safeguards when in Government,” Rowland said in a statement, “but chose to place partisanship above any attempt to navigate the public interest” despite claiming that “80% of Australians want action” to rein in rampant online disinformation.

Labor last year introduced the legislation – which would give ACMA a range of enforcement powers – and went back to the drawing board last November amidst widespread concerns that it would, among other things, restrict religious freedom and stifle Australians’ freedom of speech.

Vociferous opposition to the bill included efforts such as BinTheBill, which warned the legislation would ban “honestly held opinions… made by ordinary Australians”, drive ‘star chamber’ inquiries into allegations of misinformation, and entrench Big Tech’s censorship of online content.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications inquiry into the bill received thousands of submissions, with a September impact analysis recommending that ACMA be given a range of powers around transparency, complaints handling, risk management, and more.

The committee’s newly released final report recommended that the bill “be withdrawn and immediately discharged”, with chair Senator Karen Grogan citing “years of consultation, discussion and negotiation” in an effort to rein in the “deeply troubling” threat of disinformation.

“It is important that Australians can express their views on significant matters of policy,” she wrote, “however some of the views put forward to the committee were deeply polarising, and some were highly offensive.”

“Some expressed concerns at the claims they had heard about the bill rather than the actual content of the bill.”

The right idea, executed poorly?

Australia’s backdown comes weeks after X CEO Elon Musk called the government “fascists” for proposed tighter controls on misinformation – a problem that has become so rife on X that news organisation The Guardian recently stopped posting on what it called a “toxic media platform”.

Free speech advocates welcomed the government’s capitulation, with Institute of Public Affairs deputy executive director Daniel Wild calling the decision “a big win for mainstream Australians who would have been silenced by the elites of Canberra.”

The proposed legislation was “unfair, anti-democratic, and dangerous,” Wild said, calling the withdrawal of the legislation “a seismic blow against… the global censorship agenda, which sought to silence online debate.”

Shadow Minister for Communications David Coleman wasted no time putting the boot in, arguing that the “appalling bill… betrayed our democracy and had no place in our nation.”

Its proposed ministerial powers – which would allow the Minister for Communications “to personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings” – “would be expected in a dystopian novel,” Coleman said.

“Platforms would have censored online content to avoid the threat of big fines,” he said, noting that the government “managed to unite groups from all corners of Australian society against this shocking plan.”

The Australian Greens were philosophically aligned with the bill’s objectives, arguing that “those responsible for the distribution of false or misleading information intended to harm must be held to account, and the platforms whose algorithms allow for its spread must be reined in.”

However, they said, “this bill did not get to the heart of these issues,” citing “concerning exemptions” for mainstream media “and broad, ambiguous definitions that would hand over responsibility to social media platforms to determine what is true and what isn’t.”

The decision is a blow for the government’s wide-ranging efforts to rein in the social damage it argues has been caused by unfettered Big Tech firms – including its anti-doxxing legislation and its move, backed by the Coalition, to introduce a minimum age of 16 years for access to social media.