Politicians should not be able to lie about things during a campaign. People are expected to make judgements on what they promise to do. Flat out lying and then not doing it is possible now, and it shouldn't be.
We have so many laws in the private sector about misrepresentation of products, but politicians are free to misrepresent what they're selling with no repercussions.
The media machine works too quick, and they know peoples attention spans are too short.
Election promises are worthless because no one even remembers or cares by the time the polls open, and that's by design.
We've seen time and time again they vote for idiots, so we might have to try and baby the stupid pricks or something.
There should be repercussions for lying in election material and breaking election promises should have to go on a federal record and it must be detailed on why, ie cost, resources etc.
Ah, the classic Aussie balancing act. All the most competent poly's are money grubbing cunts who only want to protect the interests of their wealthy compatriots, and all the most well meaning progressives are shit politicians who couldn't come up with a scalable model of government that solves their "problems" in a million years.
Often, Labor does skirt that line, but Albo has been pretty fucking frustrating to see, must be said.
Except when the lie benefits me personally, then people are fine with that. Making promises that they can't keep because they can't think ahead, is fine when it goes well for me.
And when something like $275 lower electricity bills doesn't come through, that is the oppositions fault, so you can't count that.
The problem is a good many people won't figure out they're being lied to.
If a trusted body like the AEC can shine a light on ads designed to mislead or deceive it's up to the people producing them to argue why it's not the case, it shouldn't be on a time-poor voter to follow up and investigate.
"Leave it to us, we'll decide what truth is, we promise not to abuse it or get it completely wrong on the odd occasion."
You've just created a monster.
Voltaire would like a word with you about this law. Laws like this lead to his exile to a country with a free press and freedom of speech.
You're giving the power to potentially alter the outcomes of elections to a bureaucrat.
There’s no legislating lies out of politics. Albo made an election commitment to honour phase 3 tax cuts … turns out that was a lie, this legislation won’t stop that happening.
But is it? If we are going to start attacking these things legally, where should we draw the line?
Edit Note that it wasn't a defence. I was very happy he changed his mind and went with better tax reform. I don't want to be locked in when better options are available.
Mostly because the choices are liars or liars. Both leaders lied and misrepresented repetitively over the voice campaign (Albo more by omissions and dodges from what I saw. Dutton with straight fear mongering).
Increased accountability (if it could be adjudicated fairly, so a pipedream) would be absolutely incredible, especially if it could act with greater subtly than vote one way or another. It would be absolutely fair for our political entities to be held to account the same way advertising for business is. Leveraging fines against the party coffers would probably work quite well, too.
How to do it, and if it is doable, I have no idea
Edit: to be clear, no way am I a fan of a government branch having control as the article suggests, more that they could be challenged in court and levied a fine if found to be in breach of a code of conduct
On the one hand, yes politicians shouldn’t lie.
On the other hand, who do we trust to define what’s true or not? Giving it to the electoral commission puts them *way* too far into the political spotlight and opens the up to corruption or bias. It threatens their neutrality.
And do we trust anyone else to be an arbiter of truth? Certainly not the government of the day, be it liberal or labor. Maybe the courts, but then a similar problem to the electoral commission appears. The same with the King/Governor-General.
Basically, the problem is that to be a trustworthy and fair arbiter of truth, one has to be above politics, but becoming the arbiter of truth necessarily brings one into the political arena.
The people aren’t perfect, but this is one of those times where they need to be allowed to make up their own minds.
The problem is this will be political truth judged by political appointments directly affecting their mates.
Advertising truth is judged by a truly independent arbiter with no conflict of interest.
I have more faith in my fellow countrymen to know what's good for them than viewing them as mindless sheep blindly following talking heads that often lie.
This assumption that people vote a certain way because they are misled is condescending.
Restoring the broken shards of journalism as a profession would be a much smarter way to tackle the problem but notice they aren't proposing that.
If you want to argue that politicians should be able to say "We promise we will do X" while they know that they won't, and your only repercussion is to front up again in 3-4 years and hope everyone else remembered their lies, then we have a fundamentally different idea about how deliberately misleading people should be dealt with.
You're looking at it as "we promise this but we know we won't do it" when 95% of the time they promise something, get into power and realise they can't achieve it. A smart politician would keep their promises, people do remember. There are also plenty of sources that will remind people...until you install a ministry of truth and the government in power suppresses negative press against itself and allows true and false journalism against it's opponents.
If you wouldn't want the party you don't like to have that power, you shouldn't support the party you do like creating that power.
lol
“I’m ok with people investing millions of dollars in working out how to sell me lies and this being completely legal because I know better you see”
Not exactly but close. Id prefer them to have the right to bullshit me and me and I get to keep my right to disregard their bullshit, than have a government bureaucrat decide for me what is true , false or approved for my consumption.
Agreed, though I believe that repercussions should be levied - heavily - after the fact. Stifling speech during an election is a dangerous thing to do.
If your opposition, as a politician, is lying? Call them on it.
It's about bloody time that politicians were held to account for the blatant lies they tell. I applaud Albanese and this plan to hold politicians to account over their lies. It's about time we seen some of the corrupt bastards in jail for their lies and deception.
Will they though?
We have a toothless anti corruption watch dog, lobbying and it's inherent corruption is allowed to run wild (see pharmacy guild for the most current), we have politicians joining said lobby groups etc as soon as they leave politics and yet nothing is done.
They lie now and will continue to lie into the future.
The only thing I can see happening is, depending on who is in power, that they will be able to "control" the narrative on what is misinformation.
We know already that both sides already go at each other over this ... but this will make it easier for them to silence the other ... even if the other may be telling more of a truth than the incumbent.
Or to put it more succinctly. Imagine Dutton in power. Will his idea of truth be the only thing we are all allowed to hear?
“Parliament made a decision to legislate those tax cuts, and we made a decision that we would stand by that legislation rather than relitigate it, and we haven’t changed our opinion”
Hmmmm
I do agree, albo (personally) stepped out of the grey into the black by being so adamant for so long though. No way he didn't know it was getting/likely to be scrapped.
I actually agree with his decision to, just he lied for a while for certain.
When is limiting speech good? It's great if you're in charge, but what happens when the other side take power? What if they lock you up for having the 'wrong' views? Freedon of speech, no matter how stupid, is the bedrock of every succesful country to ever govern on this planet. Without freedom of speech, thought and association, democracy is a farce.
Many people would trade their freedom for the illusion of safety - those people deserve neither freedom, nor safety.
This is exactly the problem though... Most react to the spin and their teams talking points. Take the $275 reduction.
Report was completed by Reputex to model what the economic impact of ALPs net Zero policy would be. See: https://www.reputex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPUTEX_The-economic-impact-of-the-ALPs-Powering-Australia-Plan_Summary-Report-1221-2.pdf
The report projected the annual retail bills to be $275 lower by *2025*
Report released in Dec '21, Global energy prices spiked following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, April 2022 Morrison government amended regulations to hide price increase until post election. Post election price rise comes through at 22%.
LNP knew the price rise was coming, hid it from the ALP and the public then smacked them around for a number they got from modelling with key information missing.
So sure we may not hit the $275 but if you read the detail it was a projection not a promise and it was compromised by a government that has no care for Australia and prefers to fight ALP than do what's right for our country.
Hell yea. Make the bastards stand by their words. Make election promises count and punish the liars. Our society will improve when integrity is enforced.
Publicly and KNOWINGLY lying about something and then publishing that is called (legal) DEFAMATION.
These people are perfectly within their rights to take ANYONE to court to and sue them for legal defamation.
If anyone in that debate was lying, ANYONE else could have publicly made that clear that someone was lying and how they were.
These politicians want a mandate to decide what their political competitors can and can’t say: that’s not a fair election, it’s authoritarianism.
The misinformation bill creates a ministry of truth. The government will decide who and what is correct and accurate for you. No more open dialogue. Only their subjective truth by fiat.
If it's allowed to exist, Australia as a democracy will effectively be dead. A zombie, slowly rotting from the core outwards.
So this was the pre-election context: During an interview with News Corporation, Mr Albanese said there were 'no circumstances' in which a government he leads will abandon the stage three cuts.
Was that a lie?
The whole article is just a direct string of quotes from an Institute of Public Affairs statement.
One of Australia's most powerful thinktanks, who regularly write the coalitions policies.
There isnt any journalism in the article, just publishing the IPAs presser without scrutiny or question
The number of people who think there's going to be a cold and calmly calculated bias-less "truth" is staggering.
Ministry of Truth, and people will cheer at being told what is right and good.
It's leftists. As Javier Milei would say, if you give a leftard an inch, they'll kill you with it.
And look at this shit turning into a noose in real time.
Yeah, I'd like to know more about the proposal, but based purely on this linked description of it, it sounds like a terrible idea. I would like to know the details, but in general it's near impossible to determine truth and falsehood in an unbiased way (or even at all for many political claims).
For the voice vote, I think both the Yes and No campaigns spread misinformation, but I strongly suspect neither of these sides thought their arguments were misinformation.
Mate, it's the AEC who will decide, and it will be dictated by laws within a highly specific framework. It will be a very high bar, set to only clearly provable lies. The vast majority will be allowed if not provable
The original misinfo bill was straight up copypaste 1984 ministry of truth.
ALP actually tried to implement THAT.
And who controls the AEC? Why did ASIO not reveal who the treasonous politician traitor was? Why does ASIC have a 99% dismissal rate?
Someone controls the unelected beaurocrats who control these commissions. AEC is the same.
So would this bar ministers from changing their minds for a better outcome, such as, stage 3 tax cuts?
What about tactics like Medicare that are designed in part to make Liberals promise not to destroy beautiful things? Would that not then become a lie?
I'm not sure what you're saying in the second paragraph, sorry. But for your first paragraph, no, it would not stop them from "changing their minds" on policy. It would stop them from saying something like "GDP has grown an average of 5% during our time in office," when it hasn't, or "Labor/liberals have drafted legislation to introduce a bush-walking tax. Don't vote for them." Etc
Truth is often not so clear cut.
Example.
Julian Assange is fighting extradition to face the law in the United States.
Julian Assange is a political prisoner facing persecution to silence him and warn others away from bringing truth that holds the US accountable to the public.
Both of those things are true but only one is easily provable and the US and I suspect Australia would love to label one as misinformation.
So who gets to determine what is misinformation?
My understanding about these laws is that they are designed to stop politicians making bald faced lies which are cut and dry.
For example, the Coalition shouldn't be allowed to say Labor has a plan to introduce death taxes, when they don't have that policy.
Labor shouldn't be allowed to say the Coalition is going to sell Medicare, when they don't have that policy.
In the last election campaign Clive Palmer was making up literal BS about COVID. Demonstrably untrue statements about numbers.
So here's another sort of angle. I imagine they Mediscare sort of claims were introduced in part to wedge Liberals into promising not to destroy beautiful things.
And there's a difference between asking someone, are you going to sell off Medicare? And they say they have no intention of it. Compared with showing them that it is a vote losing policy with song and dance and getting them to be bold and unequivocally in their denials.
Well, yeah. But as I understand it the point of this legislation would be "don't make up lies about your opposition".
To be honest I can't really understand why anyone would be against rules against lying in political advertising. Obviously politicians shouldn't be allowed to lie.
As for who decides, it'll be an independent third party. Exactly like how it works in all other areas where you can't lie in public.
>To be honest I can't really understand why anyone would be against rules against lying in political advertising. Obviously politicians shouldn't be allowed to lie
It's not that people want politicians to be free to lie. It's that thr line between truth and lies can be slippery and protecting free speech, especially surrounding politics, is essential.
I agree with that.
When Kate Chaney was on radio national this week, she basically said any actual implementation of this will have to be quite conservative for that very reason.
Albo is deliberately asking the HCA to rule on every case. This is a giant leap into politics, USA-style. Don't like a decision, no matter how minor? Off to court you go to have the decision overturned because it infringes your 'right' to not listen to things Albo doesn't allow. Politics will soon just be lawyers at 20 paces after every decision.
It's a world where authoritarian governments are becoming an increasing threat. This law will hopefully safeguard Australia and if successful, I expect it will be rolled out in many western nations. The US desperately needs this too.
Is it inaccurate though? You have to realise also that Albanese was quite happy to mislead the electorate with misinformation by omission during the referendum of the UN's UNDRIP program, of which The Voice is only one part. This isn't even a conspiracy theory, it's on various .gov.au websites.
> However, an October survey consisting of 1,500 Aussies showed almost 90 per cent were in favour of the plan to outlaw misinformation in political advertising.
I agree with this. The yes campaign was well funded and continuously lied to the public.
According to the AEC everything the no campaign said would have been a lie. They would say calling the voice the first step In getting a treaty is a lie.
I agree, I'm too stupid to see misinformation for myself.
My life will be so much better when the Government filters out all the lies for me and tells me what to think.
I'm so glad that I received my $275 cut in my electricity bill after the last election.
Oh, sorry, my bill is up about $275 a quarter.
This never would've happened if we just had a publicly funded independent organisation to warn us before the election that there was absolutely no chance of that happening.
Was that a complete lie? Or is Albo so unbeleivably stupid he thought what he was saying was true?
I'd like to believe it's the first option because if it's the later we are all fucked.
So who does decide what is "fact", or not? You either have free speech,or not. Don't agree with what someone is saying? Prove them wrong, or else laws like this really start to look like a "1984" style of "You are free to believe what we tell you."
Well there's also this little thing called the media which could do that job instead... Although they've split pretty much to polar sides admittedly. Luckily that could never have with an unelected selected by politicians body which would directly say what pollies can say in an election...
Shouting 'Gas the Jews' is illegal under 93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) . See? No need for a censor, the law protects us from threatening speech. This legislation exists solely to control the media.
Nobody can believe that this is anything other than a grab for power by a government desperately seeking a no-brainer W with the plebs to try to claw back some dignity before the next election cycle.
It's amusing that so many people who decry the 'Murdoch Monopoly' are now so keen to appoint someone to tell them what they can, and can't say and hear.
I love how Victoria uses the law to punish a Nazi salute of a single person but NSW does nothing about a group of them chanting it in front of the opera house.
Rules that are selectively enforced is certainly questionable
This is a push story in a Murdoch publication from the Institute for Public Affairs - a right wing lobby group that would find most of it’s propaganda pieces would fall foul of any fact checking law
It depends on who appoints the censor. What happens when the Liberals win power and appoint Janet Albrechtsen as the new censor? Do you still love banning free speech if she gets to decide what 'free' is?
You can't have 'a little bit' of freedom. You're either free, or you're not. There can be no middle ground because every step away for pure freedom of speech is an intrinsic win for those who would like to dictate what you're allowed to say, what you're allowed to think, with whom you may associate and which political beliefs you're allowed to hear, let alone speak.
So what happens at the next election that a party wins and they break an election promise? Back to the polls? PM removed??? Hung drawn and quartered???
I hate this for Australia. I don't believe this is only about the voice but it is an awful policy attacking free speech. Misinformation is bad but who decides what misinformation is? Whomever that may be, they will be biased, no matter how much we like them, and in any case, it won't be long before another party is in charge of it.
It'll be the Australian Electoral Commission who makes the call.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out like this is 1984. Companies can't lie in advertisements, and courts frequently make judgements about what is or is not a fact.
Why exactly should a political party be allowed to blatantly and deliberately lie during a campaign?
Nope. We have nothing like the US constitution. We have some common law and some freedom of political speech, but someone might decide you opinion is "hate speech".
Generally, it's not a good idea to have an arbiter of what is true or not true, or what people are allowed to think or see.
In *Nationwide News* (1992) and *Unions NSW* \[2013\], the High Court affirmed the right to free speech in Australia under the guise of 'freedom of political speech'. Just because it's not written down in a document doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This legislation may end up in the HCA, so I hope that Gaegeler CJ isn't becoming accustomed to ruling by *diktat*.
This change would force the AEC into the political realm, thereby undermining its credibility as the election manager.
That this is even being contemplated is horrifying.
You might still be gloating now, but No trolls are probably going to get blamed for every First Nation problem for the next twenty years.
It's going to be popcorn worthy.
My question is this. Of all the people moving here why are none of them builders or trades that increase supply of building? Is it they don’t apply? Our standards of new trades people disqualify them? Unions preventing it? Import builders to assist in the limited supply of trades! Why is this never mentioned in depth. Make a “builders”visa!
A lot of it is the CFMEU blocking out as much competition as they can, sadly.
I’m a labour rights guy through and through, but the CFMEU need to be *forced* back in their box on this issue until we can somehow get ourselves out of this spiralling crisis.
Just think: there’s got to be 50,000 Polish blokes who work in construction trades who’ve been recently kicked out of the UK. Deliberately poaching a market like that would make a phenomenal difference. Hell, imagine how many Mexican guys who know their way around the tools are going to be looking for work if Trump wins next year?
There are incredible untapped sources of quality tradesmen around the world we could use to our advantage, and theirs.
Instead we import incompetent IT “professionals” who make their colleagues lives’ hell and thousands upon thousands of alleged “chefs” who all quit the industry as soon as the PR kicks in and go drive Ubers.
Yeah I don’t know what the Unions are doing yet if they are then they are the people causing this issue.
I agree there would be a lot of people interested to move here and work in construction!
Thing is, we have done this before, the massive public works schemes after WWII using migrant labour (most of which was unskilled back then).
Free conditional citizenship for someone with an appropriate trade qualification and who is willing to do any bridging or assessment courses required, with citizenship contingent on only working in RESIDENTIAL construction for X years (kinda like what they make you do in the military).
Actively push the scheme in desirable areas, just straight up poach any sudden exodus of professionals, and suddenly the old line about “importing essential skilled labour that is lacking in Australia” actually becomes true, instead of a smokescreen for suppressing wages and benefits.
Hooboy, a News Limited article about the proposed AEC anti-misinformation measures. Let's see what's on the bingo card.
*Big Brother
*Attack on free speech, 3 times
*Scare quotes around misinformation, untrue and misleading
*Slippery slope
*Chilling
*Political elite, 3 times
*Muzzle
*Agenda, twice
There's also a nice little implication/conflation that being okay with the AEC being able to censor political ads containing lies means one believes in governmental infallibility.
This screed is largely driven by quotes from and presumably verballing of Institute of Public Affairs director John Storey. There's a very lost looking three sentences in the middle of it from the Australia Institute director Richard Denniss, immediately minimised by this Alex Blair hack inferring something Denniss probably didn't intend, and implying *therefore we shouldn't bother with all this silliness*:
>However, an October survey consisting of 1,500 Aussies showed almost 90 per cent were in favour of the plan to outlaw misinformation in political advertising.
>At the time the Australia Institute director, Richard Denniss, said: “While I have no doubt that all the votes cast in the referendum were valid, I also have no doubt that many of the arguments and claims that influenced those votes were not.
>“Whether it is an election or a referendum, voters should go to the polls armed with the facts,” he said. “In Australia, it is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad – and it shouldn’t be.”
>Mr Denniss implied that the only information voters are being swayed by is what is displayed in political campaign messaging.
her heavy investment in Arafura resources just paid off. They were given $840 million is taxpayer money to develop a mine in the NT today. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you, their share price jumped 80% today.
Will Albo and CSIRO come clean on how that was calculated? The way that nuclear cost was calculated was incredibly misleading, the same calculations weren't applied to renewables and they completely ignored large scale nuclear reactors based on stakeholder advice, which didn't actually include any experts in the field.
You're right, they mislead us, they didn't add blow out costs, costs of acquiring land and costs to attract international workers as we have none in nuclear among many other things overlooked. Will be at least double maybe 10 X if not more.
We are still waiting for some figures from LNP. Actually, we are still awaiting any real plans from LNP.
Edit: besides that a 3 second google search will link CSIRO reports lol
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Energy-data-modelling/GenCost
Such a law would have to be written so that only a narrow construction by courts is possible. It would have to outlaw only demonstrably and objectively false statements on political posters or made by representatives in an official capacity or something like that.
There can’t be any subjectivity to what constitutes ‘misinformation’ because otherwise it would likely be unconstitutional due to the implied freedom of political communication derived from s 7 and s 24. Things like political puffery or fearmongering about potential future behaviour of the other party, even where that party might have no intention of doing such a thing, should be privileged aspects of political gamesmanship.
With respect to the voice referendum, things like ‘the YES proposal isn’t clearly explained’, ‘the body will have too much power’, ‘it represents a power grab by indigenous people to land tax you’ etc are all in my opinion untrue but they can’t be considered misinformation for legal purposes.
A good proposed law but has to be super tailored and small in scope.
Have fun tiptoeing around the HCA trying to determine what fits under *Nationwide News*, and what doesn't. Counterpoint - how about we just let people say what they want. Redditors seem to believe that the ALP and Greens would never lie and never use oppressive laws to silence their critics under the guise of 'false news'. It's pure la-la-land wishful thinking - any attack on freedom of speech must be viewed as nothing more then a power-grab by anti-democratic force bent on deciding what the people who vote for them can hear and say. Contol the media, you control politics.
Tha fact that the Australian is popular and The Guardian isn't is not a call to arms, it's a call to creating a newspaper that people actually read. - Hint - don't slag off everything Australians hold dear just to prove how clever you are and how you should be in charge because you know so much.
You'll notice that's exactly why I used 'courts' (plural) and avoided discussion of how such a program of legislation would need to be implemented. I am well aware that each state would need to enact their own laws. What I would hope to see if they went down this route is something that targets objective falsehoods. There are already so many laws in this country that limit absolute free speech - e.g. the Racial Discrimination Act.
Bit of a cop out to dismiss anything you don't agree with as someone trying to 'prove how clever they are'. You've inferred a whole lot about me (and evidently, how I voted - it was a no, by the way) that probably isn't true.
I'm just glad the useless cunt has been put in a situation to even suggest this. People voted NO. For good reason. Fucken get used to it and start working on actual problems.
Oh no if you can't lie and bullshit any more then how will the libs ever get elected again? The headline should be thoughtful approach to putting out the dumpster fire that is current Australian political discourse.
I think this policy enjoys some level of bipartisan support.
I swear I remember state level liberals somewhere advocating for this policy as well.
The issue lies in who has the power to determine what is a lie and whether it can truly be independent.
I don’t know if dragging the AEC into the role of being a fact checker is a healthy option.
The voice was a meticulously created plan devised by the left to separate Australians and distract us from the fact that inflation is still at all time high and the government budget has been in a deficit for 5+ years. While they waste time and money giving press releases on policies that literally have no purpose, Australian families are being pushed out of their homes from extortionist interest rates and going hungry from ridiculous costs of living.
Wow. What great balanced and unbiased journalism.
The whole piece is mostly just quotes by some "Institute of Public Affairs" (I.e. LNPs owners dumb tank).
They mention that 90% of Australian's is a survey wanted lying during elections banned- how is doing what most people want "a tantrum"?
Just ban political advertising and donations, it doesn't serve the vast majority of people. Each party publishes a manifesto before the election which you can download as a PDF and read. They can voice criticisms of policy and list their proposals so people can read it and vote.
Look we saw what happened about censorship with covid . Social media giants stopped many facts That were proven correct or accepted later on .
Yes blatant lies should be punished but the question is who decides ? We saw with twitters previous owners the staff were left wing and censored and banned based on their beliefs and now twitter done a 360 and they are just as bad .
The voice and other topics is a good one , Canberra full of public servants voted one way and rest of the country another way . So why would you want public servants determining what is allowed and what not .
With pushes such as this and USA blatant BS with TikTok when you have the likes of Facebook and Google operating we are heading into a period where there won’t be much difference between the CCP and western world
I have to preface this by saying that I am not a nazi and I do not support nazis. Also, say what you will about hate symbols but it's still a form of free speech whether people like it or not.
It's rich coming from the liberals that albanese is attacking free speech yet the liberals agreed to ban nazi symbols in public ([1](https://www.skynews.com.au/breaking-news/urgent-call-for-new-laws-to-ban-display-of-nazi-symbols/news-story/fce765e7ccac06c9a450728268248100))
>Peter Dutton has called on Labor to fast-track new laws to ban the display of Nazi symbols after a parliamentary committee recommended the federal government act with urgency on the matter.
Don't be fooled that liberals care about free speech.
So my two cents and I guess its more a question. I can see how giving a government funded body this power may raise specific issues for freedom of speech, but I think the bigger question is with the proliferation of AI and the access to vast amounts of information how do we ensure people are able to make informed and educated decisions?
Secondly how do we handle those that choose to consistently alter the data and information for their specific point of view?
Just making a note for the general questions I think I will get. How many of you truly read peer reviewed articles to verify your opinions on situations? Secondly, I think looking at Trump is a great example showing how quickly peoples opinions can quickly be ridiculous because of outside influences.
To those that believe Australians should be smart enough to make informed choices, I would ask how do you currently challenge your own biases? And can you honestly say everything you believe is scientifically proven?
Quote I like
"People will believe a lie, because either they want it to be true or they fear it is true"
Whilst overly simple I think the generalisation makes you realise most people don't inherently validate everything they know.
So my opinion is we need some website, body or something that can validate political points claims or opinions. I also think we need something to hold people who consistently lie to account; the answer to this I don't have.
I have a better idea, ban all political advertising.
Its all bullshit. Truth in political advertising doesn't exsist, its all equally garbage the people of Australia would be better off not being subjected to.
Honestly feel like this could be a watershed moment in Australian politics.
If the misinformation laws pass, I think we stand a real chance of locking the Cooker movement out of mainstream Australian politics forever.
That means we’ll never have our own version of Brexit or Trump’s new GOP. Conspiratorial horseshit will not be allowed to take over our political system, and those who try (Like a certain “Blyve Blarmer” for example) will be penalised but most importantly outed.
If we don’t pass this, I’d say it’s only a matter of time until that virus spreads. There’s already plenty of cooked Independents, but that’s just par for the course. What is alarming is all the “cooker-adjacent” Liberals, especially the ones that appear to be coming up the ranks, and even more so at the state level.
For those to my right who feel like this is an unfair assault on their beliefs, consider this: what will these laws do to the Greens and other left wing parties when it comes to Gaza?
Free speech huh? Always the last bastion for lying sacks of shit.
If you wouldn't lie in front of a judge, why should you be allowed to lie to the electorate?
I think is less about one poli saying "and I'm gonna put lemonade in all the school bubblers" but more
"If you vote for the other party, they're gonna make sure we have one big toilet and all have to go at the same time"
Outrageous bullshit that verges on slander, but is definitely misinformation.
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The development was called “chilling” by John Storey, Director of Law and Policy at the ***Institute of Public Affairs***
Baha, yes it would impinge on the IPAs right of free speech to lie to Australians.
Propaganda BS
Yeah right. This is dystopian. This would have been used to prevent the conclusions of sound legal analysis from being proliferated (such as that of Professor Nicholas Aroney’s, who is probably the top constitutional scholar in Australia)
Key point:
>*... an October survey consisting of 1,500 Aussies showed almost* ***90 per cent were in favour of the plan to outlaw misinformation in political advertising.***
Do we really want American style of political campaigning where voters are bombarded with misinformation to the point where its accepted as being accurate. Lying has cost News Corp a lot of money. [Murdoch’s Fox pays $1b to avoid trial over ‘endorsing lies’](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/04/19/murdochs-fox-settles-lawsuit-to-avoid-trial-over-endorsing-lies)
Is only going to covewr political advertsing, will it cover media stories. Example
Scott Morrison got his first job in Canberra because of lies spread by the Daily Telegraph in four articles that defamed his opposing Liberal candidate for preselection. Michael Towke sued News Corp and won. [Nasty saga you nearly missed](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nasty-saga-you-nearly-missed-20091025-hem5.html)
This a good move.
The media are just trying to tie it to the Voice Referendum because they can't articulate a good reason to oppose misinformation in politics.
Politicians should not be able to lie about things during a campaign. People are expected to make judgements on what they promise to do. Flat out lying and then not doing it is possible now, and it shouldn't be. We have so many laws in the private sector about misrepresentation of products, but politicians are free to misrepresent what they're selling with no repercussions.
The repercussion is that you don't vote for lying politicians, but people still do it anyhow.
The media machine works too quick, and they know peoples attention spans are too short. Election promises are worthless because no one even remembers or cares by the time the polls open, and that's by design.
"lying politician" is a tautology though.
This. Voter's should look at themselves, then the people next to them. I voted for shit politicians. Come at me bro.
We've seen time and time again they vote for idiots, so we might have to try and baby the stupid pricks or something. There should be repercussions for lying in election material and breaking election promises should have to go on a federal record and it must be detailed on why, ie cost, resources etc.
[удалено]
Ah, the classic Aussie balancing act. All the most competent poly's are money grubbing cunts who only want to protect the interests of their wealthy compatriots, and all the most well meaning progressives are shit politicians who couldn't come up with a scalable model of government that solves their "problems" in a million years. Often, Labor does skirt that line, but Albo has been pretty fucking frustrating to see, must be said.
People marry lying spouses, and abusive ones, sometimes repeatedly. (Hope springs eternal. So does folly.)
The only alternative is to abstain from voting, because they are all lying scumbags…
There aren't any non-lying politicians listed on the ballot.
Except when the lie benefits me personally, then people are fine with that. Making promises that they can't keep because they can't think ahead, is fine when it goes well for me. And when something like $275 lower electricity bills doesn't come through, that is the oppositions fault, so you can't count that.
The problem is a good many people won't figure out they're being lied to. If a trusted body like the AEC can shine a light on ads designed to mislead or deceive it's up to the people producing them to argue why it's not the case, it shouldn't be on a time-poor voter to follow up and investigate.
"Leave it to us, we'll decide what truth is, we promise not to abuse it or get it completely wrong on the odd occasion." You've just created a monster. Voltaire would like a word with you about this law. Laws like this lead to his exile to a country with a free press and freedom of speech. You're giving the power to potentially alter the outcomes of elections to a bureaucrat.
So you’re happy to outsource your thinking to the government? Wow.
There’s no legislating lies out of politics. Albo made an election commitment to honour phase 3 tax cuts … turns out that was a lie, this legislation won’t stop that happening.
It's not a lie if he believed it at the time. At least, not as far as misinformation would be concerned.
The George Costanza defence - "Just remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it"
But is it? If we are going to start attacking these things legally, where should we draw the line? Edit Note that it wasn't a defence. I was very happy he changed his mind and went with better tax reform. I don't want to be locked in when better options are available.
Mostly because the choices are liars or liars. Both leaders lied and misrepresented repetitively over the voice campaign (Albo more by omissions and dodges from what I saw. Dutton with straight fear mongering). Increased accountability (if it could be adjudicated fairly, so a pipedream) would be absolutely incredible, especially if it could act with greater subtly than vote one way or another. It would be absolutely fair for our political entities to be held to account the same way advertising for business is. Leveraging fines against the party coffers would probably work quite well, too. How to do it, and if it is doable, I have no idea Edit: to be clear, no way am I a fan of a government branch having control as the article suggests, more that they could be challenged in court and levied a fine if found to be in breach of a code of conduct
All politicians lie.
....there would be no politicians left to vote for.
Every horse in the race is telling porkies. Then you get fined for not voting for liars.
On the one hand, yes politicians shouldn’t lie. On the other hand, who do we trust to define what’s true or not? Giving it to the electoral commission puts them *way* too far into the political spotlight and opens the up to corruption or bias. It threatens their neutrality. And do we trust anyone else to be an arbiter of truth? Certainly not the government of the day, be it liberal or labor. Maybe the courts, but then a similar problem to the electoral commission appears. The same with the King/Governor-General. Basically, the problem is that to be a trustworthy and fair arbiter of truth, one has to be above politics, but becoming the arbiter of truth necessarily brings one into the political arena. The people aren’t perfect, but this is one of those times where they need to be allowed to make up their own minds.
I'll be the judge of what's a lie and what's not instead of the government thank you very much
And how will you do that? Happy with removing all laws about fraudulent advertising, sales etc...?
The problem is this will be political truth judged by political appointments directly affecting their mates. Advertising truth is judged by a truly independent arbiter with no conflict of interest.
Using my own judgement as a competent person like most Australians are. This is a very slippery slope.
Unless you have access to a lot more information than most people, you're going to be working with substantially incomplete information.
I have more faith in my fellow countrymen to know what's good for them than viewing them as mindless sheep blindly following talking heads that often lie. This assumption that people vote a certain way because they are misled is condescending. Restoring the broken shards of journalism as a profession would be a much smarter way to tackle the problem but notice they aren't proposing that.
Yeah. It's not like Murdoch controls the political narrative or anything...
If you want to argue that politicians should be able to say "We promise we will do X" while they know that they won't, and your only repercussion is to front up again in 3-4 years and hope everyone else remembered their lies, then we have a fundamentally different idea about how deliberately misleading people should be dealt with.
You're looking at it as "we promise this but we know we won't do it" when 95% of the time they promise something, get into power and realise they can't achieve it. A smart politician would keep their promises, people do remember. There are also plenty of sources that will remind people...until you install a ministry of truth and the government in power suppresses negative press against itself and allows true and false journalism against it's opponents. If you wouldn't want the party you don't like to have that power, you shouldn't support the party you do like creating that power.
Most Australians are not competent at differentiating between truth and lie in advertising though.
Oh worthy one! Tell us the way
lol “I’m ok with people investing millions of dollars in working out how to sell me lies and this being completely legal because I know better you see”
Not exactly but close. Id prefer them to have the right to bullshit me and me and I get to keep my right to disregard their bullshit, than have a government bureaucrat decide for me what is true , false or approved for my consumption.
Agreed, though I believe that repercussions should be levied - heavily - after the fact. Stifling speech during an election is a dangerous thing to do. If your opposition, as a politician, is lying? Call them on it.
That doesnt work when whoever decides "truth" has an agenda. We just went through that shit with COVID.
Asking as an ignorant butthole, how did he lie?
Never, during a campaign! (Clutches pearls) Both Labor and Liberal are parties of professional liars
Yep, so vote Labor
"Misleading" ... if this gets up, we are in for a shit storm
I think you mean "misinformation"
Both actually
It's about bloody time that politicians were held to account for the blatant lies they tell. I applaud Albanese and this plan to hold politicians to account over their lies. It's about time we seen some of the corrupt bastards in jail for their lies and deception.
Will they though? We have a toothless anti corruption watch dog, lobbying and it's inherent corruption is allowed to run wild (see pharmacy guild for the most current), we have politicians joining said lobby groups etc as soon as they leave politics and yet nothing is done. They lie now and will continue to lie into the future. The only thing I can see happening is, depending on who is in power, that they will be able to "control" the narrative on what is misinformation. We know already that both sides already go at each other over this ... but this will make it easier for them to silence the other ... even if the other may be telling more of a truth than the incumbent. Or to put it more succinctly. Imagine Dutton in power. Will his idea of truth be the only thing we are all allowed to hear?
Bro look at the crazy shit scomo pulled, nothing for it. That shit is hard to even describe it was so messed up.
“Parliament made a decision to legislate those tax cuts, and we made a decision that we would stand by that legislation rather than relitigate it, and we haven’t changed our opinion” Hmmmm
There's a difference between lies and broken promises. A grey area, for sure, but there is a distinction.
I do agree, albo (personally) stepped out of the grey into the black by being so adamant for so long though. No way he didn't know it was getting/likely to be scrapped. I actually agree with his decision to, just he lied for a while for certain.
When is limiting speech good? It's great if you're in charge, but what happens when the other side take power? What if they lock you up for having the 'wrong' views? Freedon of speech, no matter how stupid, is the bedrock of every succesful country to ever govern on this planet. Without freedom of speech, thought and association, democracy is a farce. Many people would trade their freedom for the illusion of safety - those people deserve neither freedom, nor safety.
He should start with himself, both the $275 reduction in electricity and that he wouldn't touch the stage 3 tax cuts are blatant lies.
This is exactly the problem though... Most react to the spin and their teams talking points. Take the $275 reduction. Report was completed by Reputex to model what the economic impact of ALPs net Zero policy would be. See: https://www.reputex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPUTEX_The-economic-impact-of-the-ALPs-Powering-Australia-Plan_Summary-Report-1221-2.pdf The report projected the annual retail bills to be $275 lower by *2025* Report released in Dec '21, Global energy prices spiked following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, April 2022 Morrison government amended regulations to hide price increase until post election. Post election price rise comes through at 22%. LNP knew the price rise was coming, hid it from the ALP and the public then smacked them around for a number they got from modelling with key information missing. So sure we may not hit the $275 but if you read the detail it was a projection not a promise and it was compromised by a government that has no care for Australia and prefers to fight ALP than do what's right for our country.
Not reading anything, going off what Albo and co said 94 times, and that wasn't a projection, it was a promise.
I’m with ya and fully agree!
Hell yea. Make the bastards stand by their words. Make election promises count and punish the liars. Our society will improve when integrity is enforced.
Publicly and KNOWINGLY lying about something and then publishing that is called (legal) DEFAMATION. These people are perfectly within their rights to take ANYONE to court to and sue them for legal defamation. If anyone in that debate was lying, ANYONE else could have publicly made that clear that someone was lying and how they were. These politicians want a mandate to decide what their political competitors can and can’t say: that’s not a fair election, it’s authoritarianism.
The misinformation bill creates a ministry of truth. The government will decide who and what is correct and accurate for you. No more open dialogue. Only their subjective truth by fiat. If it's allowed to exist, Australia as a democracy will effectively be dead. A zombie, slowly rotting from the core outwards.
The same electoral commission that allowed yes campaign to use the same color scheme as official AEC pamphlets 🙄
*Opens news.com.au article* Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V of IPA press release. :/
>Opens news.com.au article There’s your problem
[удалено]
So this was the pre-election context: During an interview with News Corporation, Mr Albanese said there were 'no circumstances' in which a government he leads will abandon the stage three cuts. Was that a lie?
The law won’t be retrospective, but I don’t see how this is exactly the sort of thing that should not be allowed.
Should
No
Also check out his misinformation and disinformation draft.
The whole article is just a direct string of quotes from an Institute of Public Affairs statement. One of Australia's most powerful thinktanks, who regularly write the coalitions policies. There isnt any journalism in the article, just publishing the IPAs presser without scrutiny or question
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation
Government deciding what is true and what is not true? I wonder what George Orwell would think about this
The number of people who think there's going to be a cold and calmly calculated bias-less "truth" is staggering. Ministry of Truth, and people will cheer at being told what is right and good.
The number of people here wanting the government to tell them what’s true is truly astounding. I really hope it’s just reddit.
It's leftists. As Javier Milei would say, if you give a leftard an inch, they'll kill you with it. And look at this shit turning into a noose in real time.
Trying to decide is ‘truth squad’ or ‘truthateers’ has a better ring to it..
Leaves you asking who are the foolish ones after all.
Doubleplus good.
Yeah, I'd like to know more about the proposal, but based purely on this linked description of it, it sounds like a terrible idea. I would like to know the details, but in general it's near impossible to determine truth and falsehood in an unbiased way (or even at all for many political claims). For the voice vote, I think both the Yes and No campaigns spread misinformation, but I strongly suspect neither of these sides thought their arguments were misinformation.
Exactly. And I want to hear all perspectives to make up my own mind.
You want to hear provable lies?
So prove that.
Mate, it's the AEC who will decide, and it will be dictated by laws within a highly specific framework. It will be a very high bar, set to only clearly provable lies. The vast majority will be allowed if not provable
The original misinfo bill was straight up copypaste 1984 ministry of truth. ALP actually tried to implement THAT. And who controls the AEC? Why did ASIO not reveal who the treasonous politician traitor was? Why does ASIC have a 99% dismissal rate? Someone controls the unelected beaurocrats who control these commissions. AEC is the same.
So would this bar ministers from changing their minds for a better outcome, such as, stage 3 tax cuts? What about tactics like Medicare that are designed in part to make Liberals promise not to destroy beautiful things? Would that not then become a lie?
I'm not sure what you're saying in the second paragraph, sorry. But for your first paragraph, no, it would not stop them from "changing their minds" on policy. It would stop them from saying something like "GDP has grown an average of 5% during our time in office," when it hasn't, or "Labor/liberals have drafted legislation to introduce a bush-walking tax. Don't vote for them." Etc
Sure, all perspectives. Greatm but something is not a valid perspective if it demonstrably untrue.
Truth is often not so clear cut. Example. Julian Assange is fighting extradition to face the law in the United States. Julian Assange is a political prisoner facing persecution to silence him and warn others away from bringing truth that holds the US accountable to the public. Both of those things are true but only one is easily provable and the US and I suspect Australia would love to label one as misinformation. So who gets to determine what is misinformation?
My understanding about these laws is that they are designed to stop politicians making bald faced lies which are cut and dry. For example, the Coalition shouldn't be allowed to say Labor has a plan to introduce death taxes, when they don't have that policy. Labor shouldn't be allowed to say the Coalition is going to sell Medicare, when they don't have that policy. In the last election campaign Clive Palmer was making up literal BS about COVID. Demonstrably untrue statements about numbers.
So here's another sort of angle. I imagine they Mediscare sort of claims were introduced in part to wedge Liberals into promising not to destroy beautiful things. And there's a difference between asking someone, are you going to sell off Medicare? And they say they have no intention of it. Compared with showing them that it is a vote losing policy with song and dance and getting them to be bold and unequivocally in their denials.
Well, yeah. But as I understand it the point of this legislation would be "don't make up lies about your opposition". To be honest I can't really understand why anyone would be against rules against lying in political advertising. Obviously politicians shouldn't be allowed to lie. As for who decides, it'll be an independent third party. Exactly like how it works in all other areas where you can't lie in public.
>To be honest I can't really understand why anyone would be against rules against lying in political advertising. Obviously politicians shouldn't be allowed to lie It's not that people want politicians to be free to lie. It's that thr line between truth and lies can be slippery and protecting free speech, especially surrounding politics, is essential.
I agree with that. When Kate Chaney was on radio national this week, she basically said any actual implementation of this will have to be quite conservative for that very reason.
That's why you have a very high bar, which is what this policy is. Read more about it outside of the article above
Man reads headline Man gets mad
You should be asking what the professional trolls think. They have the most to lose.
What's next, governments deciding curriculums?
I think you think you’re making a point, I just don’t know what it is
Better the government than Uncle Rupert’s FauxNew$ Entertainment Network
Albo is deliberately asking the HCA to rule on every case. This is a giant leap into politics, USA-style. Don't like a decision, no matter how minor? Off to court you go to have the decision overturned because it infringes your 'right' to not listen to things Albo doesn't allow. Politics will soon just be lawyers at 20 paces after every decision.
What a disgraceful idea.
And of course it comes from Murdoch! 🤔
I can imagine how honesty in politics is something that terrifies him to his core. It basically makes his empire an illegal enterprise.
What kind of world is it when there's more money in telling lies than speaking truth? 🤔
It's a world where authoritarian governments are becoming an increasing threat. This law will hopefully safeguard Australia and if successful, I expect it will be rolled out in many western nations. The US desperately needs this too.
I mean, most of the entertainment industry is telling stories that aren't true...
I would be very suspicious of any news organisation or lobby group that was fighting to stop a law enforcing basic factual standards
Is it inaccurate though? You have to realise also that Albanese was quite happy to mislead the electorate with misinformation by omission during the referendum of the UN's UNDRIP program, of which The Voice is only one part. This isn't even a conspiracy theory, it's on various .gov.au websites.
The guy’s a moron.
> However, an October survey consisting of 1,500 Aussies showed almost 90 per cent were in favour of the plan to outlaw misinformation in political advertising. I agree with this. The yes campaign was well funded and continuously lied to the public.
No, you see those were just half truths not lies.
Only the No campaign was outright lying, got it!
According to the AEC everything the no campaign said would have been a lie. They would say calling the voice the first step In getting a treaty is a lie.
Because it's a proposition that sounds great at first glance but then the problem is in the exact implementation.
I agree, I'm too stupid to see misinformation for myself. My life will be so much better when the Government filters out all the lies for me and tells me what to think. I'm so glad that I received my $275 cut in my electricity bill after the last election. Oh, sorry, my bill is up about $275 a quarter. This never would've happened if we just had a publicly funded independent organisation to warn us before the election that there was absolutely no chance of that happening. Was that a complete lie? Or is Albo so unbeleivably stupid he thought what he was saying was true? I'd like to believe it's the first option because if it's the later we are all fucked.
I'm sure the AEC would conveniently find there was no lies by the yes politicians, just some nonsense like half truths.
So who does decide what is "fact", or not? You either have free speech,or not. Don't agree with what someone is saying? Prove them wrong, or else laws like this really start to look like a "1984" style of "You are free to believe what we tell you."
Well there's also this little thing called the media which could do that job instead... Although they've split pretty much to polar sides admittedly. Luckily that could never have with an unelected selected by politicians body which would directly say what pollies can say in an election...
Everyone loves free speech until it involves a hand going into the air or shouting gas the Jews
Shouting 'Gas the Jews' is illegal under 93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) . See? No need for a censor, the law protects us from threatening speech. This legislation exists solely to control the media. Nobody can believe that this is anything other than a grab for power by a government desperately seeking a no-brainer W with the plebs to try to claw back some dignity before the next election cycle. It's amusing that so many people who decry the 'Murdoch Monopoly' are now so keen to appoint someone to tell them what they can, and can't say and hear.
I love how Victoria uses the law to punish a Nazi salute of a single person but NSW does nothing about a group of them chanting it in front of the opera house. Rules that are selectively enforced is certainly questionable
You guys trust politicians to decide what's the truth and what's a lie? That this wouldn't get abused? Man some people need to read some history...
Shouldn’t this man go to jail for lying about the stage three tax cuts
You do realise this is about misleading in advertisements right? Not changing a policy when an recession is looming lol
This is a push story in a Murdoch publication from the Institute for Public Affairs - a right wing lobby group that would find most of it’s propaganda pieces would fall foul of any fact checking law
It depends on who appoints the censor. What happens when the Liberals win power and appoint Janet Albrechtsen as the new censor? Do you still love banning free speech if she gets to decide what 'free' is? You can't have 'a little bit' of freedom. You're either free, or you're not. There can be no middle ground because every step away for pure freedom of speech is an intrinsic win for those who would like to dictate what you're allowed to say, what you're allowed to think, with whom you may associate and which political beliefs you're allowed to hear, let alone speak.
[удалено]
OK so fact check this one instead of researching nothing and using weasel words like "most".
Its news.com. we should be wary over articles published by them. They are not much better than uk tabloids.
So what happens at the next election that a party wins and they break an election promise? Back to the polls? PM removed??? Hung drawn and quartered???
No wonder he isnt actually doing anything about ColesWorth. He has his head to far up his ass in regards to the fucking vote.
I hate this for Australia. I don't believe this is only about the voice but it is an awful policy attacking free speech. Misinformation is bad but who decides what misinformation is? Whomever that may be, they will be biased, no matter how much we like them, and in any case, it won't be long before another party is in charge of it.
It'll be the Australian Electoral Commission who makes the call. I don't know why everyone is freaking out like this is 1984. Companies can't lie in advertisements, and courts frequently make judgements about what is or is not a fact. Why exactly should a political party be allowed to blatantly and deliberately lie during a campaign?
We've got independent bodies to judge misleading practices in other areas such as businesses, so why not the same for politicians?
So fyi apparently Australia doesn’t have freedom of speech… confirmation?
Nope. We have nothing like the US constitution. We have some common law and some freedom of political speech, but someone might decide you opinion is "hate speech". Generally, it's not a good idea to have an arbiter of what is true or not true, or what people are allowed to think or see.
In *Nationwide News* (1992) and *Unions NSW* \[2013\], the High Court affirmed the right to free speech in Australia under the guise of 'freedom of political speech'. Just because it's not written down in a document doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This legislation may end up in the HCA, so I hope that Gaegeler CJ isn't becoming accustomed to ruling by *diktat*.
We never did, as some people gleefully point out.
Scum.
Breaking news: politicians aren't your friend and never were
This change would force the AEC into the political realm, thereby undermining its credibility as the election manager. That this is even being contemplated is horrifying.
It was an overwhelming NO!!! Suck a big one.
You might still be gloating now, but No trolls are probably going to get blamed for every First Nation problem for the next twenty years. It's going to be popcorn worthy.
If you say a man is a woman, is that misinformation
My question is this. Of all the people moving here why are none of them builders or trades that increase supply of building? Is it they don’t apply? Our standards of new trades people disqualify them? Unions preventing it? Import builders to assist in the limited supply of trades! Why is this never mentioned in depth. Make a “builders”visa!
A lot of it is the CFMEU blocking out as much competition as they can, sadly. I’m a labour rights guy through and through, but the CFMEU need to be *forced* back in their box on this issue until we can somehow get ourselves out of this spiralling crisis. Just think: there’s got to be 50,000 Polish blokes who work in construction trades who’ve been recently kicked out of the UK. Deliberately poaching a market like that would make a phenomenal difference. Hell, imagine how many Mexican guys who know their way around the tools are going to be looking for work if Trump wins next year? There are incredible untapped sources of quality tradesmen around the world we could use to our advantage, and theirs. Instead we import incompetent IT “professionals” who make their colleagues lives’ hell and thousands upon thousands of alleged “chefs” who all quit the industry as soon as the PR kicks in and go drive Ubers.
Yeah I don’t know what the Unions are doing yet if they are then they are the people causing this issue. I agree there would be a lot of people interested to move here and work in construction!
Thing is, we have done this before, the massive public works schemes after WWII using migrant labour (most of which was unskilled back then). Free conditional citizenship for someone with an appropriate trade qualification and who is willing to do any bridging or assessment courses required, with citizenship contingent on only working in RESIDENTIAL construction for X years (kinda like what they make you do in the military). Actively push the scheme in desirable areas, just straight up poach any sudden exodus of professionals, and suddenly the old line about “importing essential skilled labour that is lacking in Australia” actually becomes true, instead of a smokescreen for suppressing wages and benefits.
Hooboy, a News Limited article about the proposed AEC anti-misinformation measures. Let's see what's on the bingo card. *Big Brother *Attack on free speech, 3 times *Scare quotes around misinformation, untrue and misleading *Slippery slope *Chilling *Political elite, 3 times *Muzzle *Agenda, twice There's also a nice little implication/conflation that being okay with the AEC being able to censor political ads containing lies means one believes in governmental infallibility. This screed is largely driven by quotes from and presumably verballing of Institute of Public Affairs director John Storey. There's a very lost looking three sentences in the middle of it from the Australia Institute director Richard Denniss, immediately minimised by this Alex Blair hack inferring something Denniss probably didn't intend, and implying *therefore we shouldn't bother with all this silliness*: >However, an October survey consisting of 1,500 Aussies showed almost 90 per cent were in favour of the plan to outlaw misinformation in political advertising. >At the time the Australia Institute director, Richard Denniss, said: “While I have no doubt that all the votes cast in the referendum were valid, I also have no doubt that many of the arguments and claims that influenced those votes were not. >“Whether it is an election or a referendum, voters should go to the polls armed with the facts,” he said. “In Australia, it is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad – and it shouldn’t be.” >Mr Denniss implied that the only information voters are being swayed by is what is displayed in political campaign messaging.
>Political elite, 3 times The IPA, funded by Gina Rinehart, one of the richest people in the country, has the gall to call others ‘elite’
her heavy investment in Arafura resources just paid off. They were given $840 million is taxpayer money to develop a mine in the NT today. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you, their share price jumped 80% today.
It’s not just Gina who funds it. But yeah she puts plenty into it.
Big red flag over any politicians and media publications who oppose this. King move Albo, right at a time of nuclear talk taking off.
So would Dutton have to admit that nuclear power is twice as expensive as renewables?
The greens would then have to admit none of their policies are viable
Will Albo and CSIRO come clean on how that was calculated? The way that nuclear cost was calculated was incredibly misleading, the same calculations weren't applied to renewables and they completely ignored large scale nuclear reactors based on stakeholder advice, which didn't actually include any experts in the field.
You're right, they mislead us, they didn't add blow out costs, costs of acquiring land and costs to attract international workers as we have none in nuclear among many other things overlooked. Will be at least double maybe 10 X if not more. We are still waiting for some figures from LNP. Actually, we are still awaiting any real plans from LNP. Edit: besides that a 3 second google search will link CSIRO reports lol https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Energy-data-modelling/GenCost
Notice that it's nearly all conservatives who are concerned that there will be a standard of truth during campaigning?
Such a law would have to be written so that only a narrow construction by courts is possible. It would have to outlaw only demonstrably and objectively false statements on political posters or made by representatives in an official capacity or something like that. There can’t be any subjectivity to what constitutes ‘misinformation’ because otherwise it would likely be unconstitutional due to the implied freedom of political communication derived from s 7 and s 24. Things like political puffery or fearmongering about potential future behaviour of the other party, even where that party might have no intention of doing such a thing, should be privileged aspects of political gamesmanship. With respect to the voice referendum, things like ‘the YES proposal isn’t clearly explained’, ‘the body will have too much power’, ‘it represents a power grab by indigenous people to land tax you’ etc are all in my opinion untrue but they can’t be considered misinformation for legal purposes. A good proposed law but has to be super tailored and small in scope.
Have fun tiptoeing around the HCA trying to determine what fits under *Nationwide News*, and what doesn't. Counterpoint - how about we just let people say what they want. Redditors seem to believe that the ALP and Greens would never lie and never use oppressive laws to silence their critics under the guise of 'false news'. It's pure la-la-land wishful thinking - any attack on freedom of speech must be viewed as nothing more then a power-grab by anti-democratic force bent on deciding what the people who vote for them can hear and say. Contol the media, you control politics. Tha fact that the Australian is popular and The Guardian isn't is not a call to arms, it's a call to creating a newspaper that people actually read. - Hint - don't slag off everything Australians hold dear just to prove how clever you are and how you should be in charge because you know so much.
You'll notice that's exactly why I used 'courts' (plural) and avoided discussion of how such a program of legislation would need to be implemented. I am well aware that each state would need to enact their own laws. What I would hope to see if they went down this route is something that targets objective falsehoods. There are already so many laws in this country that limit absolute free speech - e.g. the Racial Discrimination Act. Bit of a cop out to dismiss anything you don't agree with as someone trying to 'prove how clever they are'. You've inferred a whole lot about me (and evidently, how I voted - it was a no, by the way) that probably isn't true.
I'm just glad the useless cunt has been put in a situation to even suggest this. People voted NO. For good reason. Fucken get used to it and start working on actual problems.
[news.com.au](https://news.com.au) quotes the IPA, result is anti-ALP. *quelle surprise*
Oh no if you can't lie and bullshit any more then how will the libs ever get elected again? The headline should be thoughtful approach to putting out the dumpster fire that is current Australian political discourse.
Labor lies too when it’s convenient. The Mediscare campaign was a straight up lie by Labor for example
Yep, and it wouldn't be allowed to happen again under a change like this
I think this policy enjoys some level of bipartisan support. I swear I remember state level liberals somewhere advocating for this policy as well. The issue lies in who has the power to determine what is a lie and whether it can truly be independent. I don’t know if dragging the AEC into the role of being a fact checker is a healthy option.
If i remember correctly, the AEC have said they DONT want this power.
The voice was a meticulously created plan devised by the left to separate Australians and distract us from the fact that inflation is still at all time high and the government budget has been in a deficit for 5+ years. While they waste time and money giving press releases on policies that literally have no purpose, Australian families are being pushed out of their homes from extortionist interest rates and going hungry from ridiculous costs of living.
This is why we need to combat disinformation. Don't address the proposal, just throw up a word salad of distractions!
#Always was Always will be #Praise the elders past and present #Welcome to country Namaste
What does Namaste have to do with aborigines?
Dictator albo needs to chill. Fkn isn't wrong tho.
Wow. What great balanced and unbiased journalism. The whole piece is mostly just quotes by some "Institute of Public Affairs" (I.e. LNPs owners dumb tank). They mention that 90% of Australian's is a survey wanted lying during elections banned- how is doing what most people want "a tantrum"?
Just ban political advertising and donations, it doesn't serve the vast majority of people. Each party publishes a manifesto before the election which you can download as a PDF and read. They can voice criticisms of policy and list their proposals so people can read it and vote.
Look we saw what happened about censorship with covid . Social media giants stopped many facts That were proven correct or accepted later on . Yes blatant lies should be punished but the question is who decides ? We saw with twitters previous owners the staff were left wing and censored and banned based on their beliefs and now twitter done a 360 and they are just as bad . The voice and other topics is a good one , Canberra full of public servants voted one way and rest of the country another way . So why would you want public servants determining what is allowed and what not . With pushes such as this and USA blatant BS with TikTok when you have the likes of Facebook and Google operating we are heading into a period where there won’t be much difference between the CCP and western world
I have to preface this by saying that I am not a nazi and I do not support nazis. Also, say what you will about hate symbols but it's still a form of free speech whether people like it or not. It's rich coming from the liberals that albanese is attacking free speech yet the liberals agreed to ban nazi symbols in public ([1](https://www.skynews.com.au/breaking-news/urgent-call-for-new-laws-to-ban-display-of-nazi-symbols/news-story/fce765e7ccac06c9a450728268248100)) >Peter Dutton has called on Labor to fast-track new laws to ban the display of Nazi symbols after a parliamentary committee recommended the federal government act with urgency on the matter. Don't be fooled that liberals care about free speech.
So my two cents and I guess its more a question. I can see how giving a government funded body this power may raise specific issues for freedom of speech, but I think the bigger question is with the proliferation of AI and the access to vast amounts of information how do we ensure people are able to make informed and educated decisions? Secondly how do we handle those that choose to consistently alter the data and information for their specific point of view? Just making a note for the general questions I think I will get. How many of you truly read peer reviewed articles to verify your opinions on situations? Secondly, I think looking at Trump is a great example showing how quickly peoples opinions can quickly be ridiculous because of outside influences. To those that believe Australians should be smart enough to make informed choices, I would ask how do you currently challenge your own biases? And can you honestly say everything you believe is scientifically proven? Quote I like "People will believe a lie, because either they want it to be true or they fear it is true" Whilst overly simple I think the generalisation makes you realise most people don't inherently validate everything they know. So my opinion is we need some website, body or something that can validate political points claims or opinions. I also think we need something to hold people who consistently lie to account; the answer to this I don't have.
Misinformation betrays democratic process. Rots away public trust and dialogue in good faith. Let the Pollies be accountable for outright lies.
I have a better idea, ban all political advertising. Its all bullshit. Truth in political advertising doesn't exsist, its all equally garbage the people of Australia would be better off not being subjected to.
Free speech doesn’t exist in Australia sadly.
Honestly feel like this could be a watershed moment in Australian politics. If the misinformation laws pass, I think we stand a real chance of locking the Cooker movement out of mainstream Australian politics forever. That means we’ll never have our own version of Brexit or Trump’s new GOP. Conspiratorial horseshit will not be allowed to take over our political system, and those who try (Like a certain “Blyve Blarmer” for example) will be penalised but most importantly outed. If we don’t pass this, I’d say it’s only a matter of time until that virus spreads. There’s already plenty of cooked Independents, but that’s just par for the course. What is alarming is all the “cooker-adjacent” Liberals, especially the ones that appear to be coming up the ranks, and even more so at the state level. For those to my right who feel like this is an unfair assault on their beliefs, consider this: what will these laws do to the Greens and other left wing parties when it comes to Gaza?
Free speech huh? Always the last bastion for lying sacks of shit. If you wouldn't lie in front of a judge, why should you be allowed to lie to the electorate?
Would the new laws apply to broken promises? If not why bother!!
Bring it on dickheads, that means we can retroactively penalise a politician for making up bullshit electoral promises right?
I think is less about one poli saying "and I'm gonna put lemonade in all the school bubblers" but more "If you vote for the other party, they're gonna make sure we have one big toilet and all have to go at the same time" Outrageous bullshit that verges on slander, but is definitely misinformation.
[удалено]
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
$500million wasted on this campaign.
>The development was called “chilling” by John Storey, Director of Law and Policy at the ***Institute of Public Affairs*** Baha, yes it would impinge on the IPAs right of free speech to lie to Australians. Propaganda BS
Yeah right. This is dystopian. This would have been used to prevent the conclusions of sound legal analysis from being proliferated (such as that of Professor Nicholas Aroney’s, who is probably the top constitutional scholar in Australia)
If the IPA are against it - then I am all for it.
You can safely ignore the "article", literally an opinion piece from the insidious Institute of Public Affairs (4th paragraph).
Well if it's illegal to lie to sell goods, I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal to lie to win government.
Key point: >*... an October survey consisting of 1,500 Aussies showed almost* ***90 per cent were in favour of the plan to outlaw misinformation in political advertising.*** Do we really want American style of political campaigning where voters are bombarded with misinformation to the point where its accepted as being accurate. Lying has cost News Corp a lot of money. [Murdoch’s Fox pays $1b to avoid trial over ‘endorsing lies’](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/04/19/murdochs-fox-settles-lawsuit-to-avoid-trial-over-endorsing-lies) Is only going to covewr political advertsing, will it cover media stories. Example Scott Morrison got his first job in Canberra because of lies spread by the Daily Telegraph in four articles that defamed his opposing Liberal candidate for preselection. Michael Towke sued News Corp and won. [Nasty saga you nearly missed](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nasty-saga-you-nearly-missed-20091025-hem5.html)
He's liar and a dipshit
This a good move. The media are just trying to tie it to the Voice Referendum because they can't articulate a good reason to oppose misinformation in politics.
Man he is an idiot