FINLAY, Dr Lorraine, Human Rights Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission Committee met at 10 : 15 CHAIR ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): I now declare open this hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples of Ngunnawal country, and pay my respect to their elders past and present. I extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today. The committee will be conducting today's hearing in person and by videoconference. These are public proceedings being videostreamed live via the parliament's website, and a Hansard transcript is being made. I remind witnesses that, in giving evidence to the committee, they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence. Witnesses also have a right to request to be heard in camera. If a witness objects to answering a question, they should state the ground upon which the objection is made, and the committee will determine whether it will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground which is claimed. If the committee determines to insist on an answer, a witness may request that the answer be given in camera. I remind senators of their obligations under the Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians to treat witnesses with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. I remind everyone engaging in the public hearing, including witnesses and members of the public, that the Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces require people to: Act respectfully, professionally and with integrity. Encourage and value diverse perspectives and recognise the importance of a free exchange of ideas. Bullying, harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated or condoned. I now welcome a representative of Australian Human Rights Commission in person. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. Would you like to make a short opening statement, and then senators will ask some questions? Dr Finlay : Thank you, Chair. Good morning, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear here today. I welcome the chance to make a brief opening statement outlining the commission's views on information integrity in the climate and energy context and the human rights considerations that arise. As Australia's national human rights institution, the commission works to promote, protect and advance human rights for all people across Australia. Central to that mandate is safeguarding the freedoms that underpin our democracy, particularly freedom of expression, access to information and participation in public life. These rights do not become less important when public policy challenges become more complex. In fact, moments of complexity make them more vital. Our submission highlights that climate related misinformation and disinformation can delay climate action, weaken support for evidence based policy and undermine the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. These harms are amplified by digital platforms, where misleading content spreads rapidly, driven by algorithms that prioritise engagement, echo chambers that reinforce false beliefs and at times coordinated inauthentic behaviour designed to manipulate public debate. In responding to these concerns, we must simultaneously hold fast to a fundamental principle—tackling misinformation and disinformation must not silence debate or different perspectives. A robust democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, on our ability to question, contest and criticise. Misinformation and disagreement are not the same thing. Treating them as though they are risks weakening the very democratic foundations we're trying to protect. My concern, which the commission has consistently reinforced when addressing these issues, is that overly broad or ambiguous regulatory approaches risk creating a chilling effect on public debate and discussion about complex issues that are absolutely critical to our nation's future. When people are prevented from questioning the prevailing consensus, we retreat from the very scientific method that's underpinned so much of human progress in the modern age. When people are prevented from expressing unpopular or dissenting views or from questioning the current zeitgeist, public trust erodes further, not less. And when trust erodes, misinformation becomes even more powerful. It's also important to recognise that misinformation does not emanate solely from one perspective. People who strongly support climate action can sometimes share oversimplified or misleading claims in an effort to strengthen the case for urgent action, just as those who reject or question climate science may circulate content that casts doubt or delays policy responses. The human tendency to trust information that aligns with our pre-existing beliefs stretches across the ideological divide. Understanding that helps shift the focus away from blaming particular groups or framing this issue from an ideological perspective and focuses instead on strengthening the overall integrity of the information environment for everyone. Digital platforms magnify both the opportunities and the dangers in this area. Algorithms that prioritise engagement over accuracy push extreme or sensational content to the top of public debate. Echo chambers make it harder for people to encounter or recognise reliable information or to hear the other side. Foreign interference, bots, trolls and emerging technologies like deepfakes further complicate the landscape, creating new risks for democratic participation and public trust. But none of these challenges justify abandoning core human rights principles. They make these principles more important. The commission urges this committee to ensure that any recommended responses to climate related misinformation and disinformation are grounded firmly in human rights principles. That means protecting the right to seek, receive and impart information, and ensuring that any regulatory response recommended is lawful, necessary and proportionate; that responses promote transparency and accountability; and that policy responses protect rather than constrain the democratic freedoms at the heart of our society, including the right to free expression. Stronger transparency obligations for digital platforms, improved access to data for researchers and decision-makers, and investment in digital literacy are essential components of an effective, multifaceted, rights based response. In conclusion, tackling misinformation is essential, but it must never come at the cost of the freedoms that sustain democracy. Ultimately, we safeguard truth not by narrowing the spaces for dialogue but by defending the freedom that allows it to thrive. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today, and I welcome the committee's questions. CHAIR: Thank you, Dr Finlay. I'll kick off. You said in your submission: The issue is not just about false information. It is about the deliberate manipulation of public discourse. Could you elaborate on that statement? Dr Finlay : I think the starting point, when dealing with any issue of misinformation or disinformation, is actually defining what we mean by misinformation and disinformation. We're dealing here with something that is factually untrue and that is designed, certainly in the case of disinformation, to manipulate that public discourse. But we're not talking about differences of opinion. We're not talking about policy debates or discussions or the type of robust debate that we need to have in Australian public life. I think that's a really critical distinction to make, because it means that any action targeting misinformation or disinformation has to be really carefully calibrated to make sure that's exactly what it's targeting and addressing and that it doesn't have an overreach into curtailing freedom of expression or differences of opinion. CHAIR: Okay. You also state: A deeper understanding of global practices could inform stronger and more effective strategies in Australia. I'd like to get you to elaborate on that too, if you would. Dr Finlay : Certainly. It's simply that we recognise this isn't a problem unique to Australia or a challenge that's unique to our jurisdiction, and there's lots that we can learn, both good and bad, from efforts that other countries and other regions are making in this area to try and address these issues, both in terms of legal responses but also in terms of broader policy responses around things like promoting digital literacy or technological responses around transparency, for example. CHAIR: You mentioned in your submission that the Australian Human Rights Commission had issues with the legislation in the last parliament. Let's just call it the 'mis- dis-' bill. Could you tell us what your concerns were there. I'm also interested—you noted that harm to the environment was taken out of reporting requirements and take-down requirements—if you've got any insights as to why that was the case. Dr Finlay : I'm happy, if it would be helpful, to provide the committee with our full written submissions that we provided both to the initial exposure draft and to the subsequent legislation, which outline quite specifically the concerns we had. In brief, the concern was that the legislation failed to strike the right balance. While we recognise the important aim of protecting against mis- and disinformation, in our view the legislation did not contain sufficient safeguards to robustly protect free expression. CHAIR: Do you have any thoughts as to why environment was in the original draft but removed from the revised draft? Was that because it's too difficult an area? Dr Finlay : That's a question probably best asked of the drafters. CHAIR: You noted it in your submission, so I was just wondering if you had any insights into that. Dr Finlay : One of the concerns we raised at the time, not only about that but about a number of the other subsections in the definitions provided in that legislation, was that, in our view, they were overly broad. The risk then is not only that that captures what we're strictly talking about from a technical perspective in terms of mis- and disinformation; you run the risk in those cases of potentially censoring climate protests, censoring climate disagreement and censoring discussion around not just the science but the interpretation of the science, the policy outcomes that result from that, the extent to which Australia should go in addressing those issues and the various costs that Australia should be prepared to bear in addressing those issues. Those are policy questions about which reasonable people can disagree, not strictly mis- and disinformation. CHAIR: It's probably more a philosophical question, but there's significant work going on at the moment around harms that occur online. Comments online can do significant harm and real-life harm. The Online Safety Act is one example that's being reviewed. We have freedom of speech, but it's not completely free. There are hate speech laws. There are concerns around online harms. There's defamation. There's a whole range of things. Do you have any view on how we get that message out there to people—that there is freedom of speech but there are also responsibilities? Dr Finlay : It's a very well established message when you look simply at the way the freedom is outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It specifically says it's a freedom that has to be exercised with special duties and responsibilities. It's very easy to, in principle, say that freedom of expression carries with it limits; it's not an absolute freedom. The challenge is: how do you define that limit in any legislative or policy response? Again, reasonable people have different views on exactly where that line should be drawn. We've provided submissions to the review of the Online Safety Act, and most recently in relation to the hate speech laws that were proposed and then the amended laws ultimately passed by this parliament. If any of that information would assist the committee, I can provide all those written submissions. CHAIR: Have you got any views on the EU Digital Services Act as a potential framework for Australia around accountability and transparency? You talk a lot in your submission about the algorithms; you mentioned in your opening statement echo chambers and pushing people down rabbit holes. Do you have any views on what would be the best regulation process for tech platforms? Dr Finlay : I should preface this answer by saying that, in our view, there isn't one piece of legislation or one particular reform that you can look to as either being perfect in and of itself or providing a complete answer. In terms of the European Union approach, we would say that some of the transparency mechanisms embedded within that legislation are useful and positive steps forward, but I know there's already been evidence before this committee about the challenges of translating those legislative requirements into action. We'd also note some concerns around the breadth of some of the definitions within that particular response, and concerns about the extent to which that might curb freedom of expression—so whether the right balance is struck there, particularly if it's transposed to an Australian context, would need some careful thought. CHAIR: We had this discussion yesterday, including with the tech platforms. There's evidence that they could do more and that they don't take online harms seriously enough, but there's also a lot of evidence that their business model is the problem. They profit from disinformation and misinformation. Do you have any views on that and how we can try to demonetise these problems like disinformation and misinformation? Dr Finlay : Part of the reason we've made recommendations around further research, better understanding of the algorithms, greater transparency, greater data access for researchers et cetera is we don't have a good understanding of how a lot of these things are operating or the impacts they have. Understanding what the issue is is essential before you can understand what potential responses are available. We would say—and this is something we've reinforced in every single submission we've made around this issue—that there isn't one perfect answer. We need tech companies to do more, but we also need a multifaceted policy response that recognises things like improving digital literacy, creating a strong and diverse media landscape and ensuring there is greater transparency and accountability. All those things have roles to play in addressing this issue because, unfortunately, it's one where there isn't one single solution. In looking for solutions, we also need to be careful not to undermine the things that are potential benefits to human rights through tech platforms, like the democratisation of information and the ability for people to express themselves in ways that were simply not possible decades ago. We need to look at both the good and the bad, and ensure our policy responses are carefully calibrated to respect the full range of human rights. That's where a rights based response framework can be helpful in guiding us in our actions on these issues. CHAIR: You promote that rights based principle in your submission, and, yes, there are lots of good things about tech platforms, and freedom of speech is important, but is it a fundamental right, under UN principles, for people to have access to reliable, accurate and timely information? Dr Finlay : Access to information is part of freedom of expression, and it's outlined in the same article in the ICCPR. We would say it's all part of the broader right. CHAIR: Thank you. Deputy Chair. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Dr Finlay, thank you for appearing. I enjoyed reading your submission. I thought your recommendations were really sensible and grounded in compelling arguments. The only one I disagreed with was the need for an AI act, but you know our position on that. What I struggle with is that this argument tends to devolve to adjudicating content, which is exactly where the platforms want us to go because it then becomes a case of 'Who becomes the arbiter of truth?' It's very difficult. You then start basically going through the weeds on complexity. It's highly resource intensive—we've just spoken to fact checkers—and, to be honest, it's not a particularly scalable solution. I'm interested in some of the recommendations. The other recommendations you've made in your report are algorithmic manipulation; the troll and bot farms, otherwise known as coordinated inauthentic behaviour; the deepfake interference; the AI slopaganda that we're now seeing on these platforms; and taking this argument away from content moderation, necessarily, all the way upstream to some of the levers that can be pulled upstream of the actual content—which is very hard to adjudicate and moderate, given the velocity and volume of this material. Can you talk us through some of those components, please? Dr Finlay : You've raised a number of things in your question. One of the important things is the focus not on content moderation, or identifying individual pieces of content as mis- or disinformation, but instead on information integrity throughout the ecosystem more broadly. We would say that, inevitably, there are immense dangers—we've repeated this in all our submissions on this issue—when you set up a single arbiter of truth. Establishing what's true versus what's false is something that sounds very nice in principle but is very, very hard to do in practice—increasingly so with the rise of artificial intelligence, deepfakes et cetera. Any single arbiter of truth, be it government or individual tech platforms, is something that needs to be strongly resisted. In terms of establishing a broader ecosystem, it's important to acknowledge that no one piece of legislation and no one action the tech companies can take will stop mis- and disinformation in and of itself. What we need is that broad ecosystem of responses all working together, from education and digital literacy programs that are aimed at all ages through to robust accountability frameworks that apply to digital platforms. Really, this all comes about through a strong principles based approach that ensures we are recognising the need for accurate, reliable information, but at the same time protecting the need for robust discussion and debate. All of these responses need to be grounded in protecting freedom of expression and ensuring that we don't undermine those principles that allow our democracy to function so effectively. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: It sounds like we need a whole-of-government approach to this. Dr Finlay : More than a whole-of-government approach. We'd say there needs to be a whole-of-society approach to ensure we actually create a strong, democratic foundation to allow really important public policy debates to occur where different perspectives can be aired, questions can be asked and different views aren't censored as being misinformation or disinformation, but actually they're just differences of opinion. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I'd like you to unpack that a little bit, for the benefit of our audience—particularly Meta, who did not seem to know anything about a rights based approach to information integrity, even though it's in the title of our committee. Could you explain, for the benefit of the Australians who are watching today, what a rights based approach means? For context, this is not new to government; we have taken a rights based approach with a bipartisan approach to disability reform as well as aged-care reform. So what does extending a rights based approach to information integrity mean? Dr Finlay : Again, it's a complicated question, but, at its essence, a rights based approach simply means recognising that human rights don't operate in a silo and aren't hierarchical or divisible. So you need to consider the full range of sometimes conflicting and competing human rights when considering policy responses. In terms of looking at a framework of information integrity, the international framework that is recognised is a set of guidelines that has been developed primarily to combat mis- and disinformation, but the focus is on five core principles to do so in a rights based way: (1) building societal trust and resilience; (2) creating healthy incentives to prioritise safety rather than profit; (3) public empowerment; (4) independent, free and pluralistic media; and (5) transparency and research. The combined impact of those, it is hoped, is an approach that recognises the full diversity of rights. It won't surprise you to hear that the Australian Human Rights Commission endorses a rights based approach not only to these issues but to the full suite of complex public policy challenges that Australia faces. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: You mentioned transparency, particularly with regard to data access. It's one of your recommendations. We've heard testimony from Australian researchers—often sent to us in confidence because they fear adversarial attacks from the platforms—around the challenges in accessing that data. Have you got anything to contribute on that front? Dr Finlay : I do, and certainly that was one of the aspects of the previous mis- and disinformation laws that the commission did actually support, so the provisions that were in place for increased data access for researchers, for example. It's an important component of actually understanding what is driving this behaviour, how it works and then what effective responses can be taken to combat it—again, recognising that those responses need to be targeted quite directly and specifically at mis- and disinformation and not a broader or vague understanding of what that might mean. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: The problem with some of the commentary in the online space is that—it seems to be a free-for-all, right, and the platforms virtually turn a blind eye to this, citing freedom of expression. What we have heard time and time again, from ordinary Australians in diverse communities right around the country, is that when they go to ask a legitimate question or raise an issue, they are silenced by torrents of abuse. As a result, it has had the opposite effect of elevating freedom of expression. It has effectively silenced people and stopped them from legitimately engaging in this conversation. How does that sit with a rights based approach and some of the rhetoric we hear from the platforms? Dr Finlay : It's one of the things that we would be concerned about, and we've spoken in our written submission about the potential for mis- and disinformation to actually diminish the ability for people to engage in public discussion. But, again, we also need to recognise that the flip side is also true—that the spaces provided by digital platforms can also enhance democratic participation and provide opportunities for people to engage in that type of discussion, which just highlights the complexities in this area. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: They can, except the way they have designed this, with their algorithmic manipulation, which basically is tuned for outrage and attention and sensationalism, means that the more moderate content or the more curious content is virtually down-ranked. It's just not something that will pop up on your feed. In fact, they're completely opaque about it. They virtually denied it yesterday. I think you've raised some of those points in your submission, haven't you? Dr Finlay : We have. Again, I'm not trying to be vague about the answers, but we do recognise the complexity in terms of having to understand that the technology in itself is morally neutral. It's how it's applied and how it's used that really matters. So thinking through responses to this that will address the problem you've identified, but do so in a way that doesn't undermine the potential for those platforms to enhance participation and access to information et cetera, is a really difficult policy challenge. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Yes. I don't think it's entirely morally neutral. These algorithms—there's no question about it; time and time again we've heard—are being manipulated by these companies to monetise content and basically boost their revenue. What are the issues with AI slopaganda and deepfake interference with respect to climate misinformation and disinformation? Dr Finlay : I'm sorry, Senator. I thought you were continuing with the question. Would you mind repeating that? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Sure. What are the issues with deepfake interference, both in the context of climate misinformation and disinformation and more broadly? Obviously, you're concerned about society and democratic resilience. Can you maybe talk us through what some of those issues are? Dr Finlay : The key challenge with deepfakes is that they really do blur that boundary between what is true and what's false, so it makes it incredibly difficult for people to actually understand what's real and what's not and whether information presented to them is true or false or real or fake. In fact—it is somewhat outside the scope of this inquiry—our concerns about deepfakes are a reason that the commission has started a project looking at deepfakes, democracy and human rights to examine the broader impacts, across the full range of human rights, that deepfakes have. We think it's incredibly important to start having that conversation now, because this is a technology that's advancing so rapidly that thinking through, at an early stage, both any potential positives and the potential risks that are there is incredibly significant and important. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Do you think social media platforms, for example, should be labelling this sort of content if it is AI generated or doctored content? Dr Finlay : I think that's increasingly becoming an important question, because even six months ago it was much easier to identify what was a fake image, for example, than it is now, and it's becoming something where ordinary people are increasingly simply unaware of whether the content they're being provided with is real or generated artificially. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Yes. We've had testimony of, for example, images of dead whales on beaches with wind turbines in the background being pushed on social media, and it has a very distressing effect on Australians. We had testimony to that effect yesterday. Do you think the social media platforms have an obligation to perhaps label that if it is in fact doctored? Dr Finlay : Well, it's certainly one of the policy responses that we're thinking through in the context of the project that we're currently undertaking. Again, I'd make the point that this isn't limited to climate change issues. It's a broader issue across the full suite of public policy questions. Again, the same human rights issues arise in terms of the importance of people having access to true, accurate, reliable information but also, at the same time, not wanting to disproportionately impact on free expression—for example, artistic or creative endeavours, the expression of opinion, satire et cetera. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Sure. In your submission, you referred to coordinated disinformation campaigns, often pushed by trolls, bots and so on. It was really in the context of political interference, with respect to a previous Senate inquiry looking at foreign interference. Have you got any examples with respect to climate? Dr Finlay : I don't have any specific examples with respect to climate off the top of my head, but certainly it is an issue that we've expressed concerns about, right back to the inquiry that you mentioned, and something that I think is becoming more, not less, significant. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Do you have any proposed safeguards against coordinated inauthentic behaviour? We had testimony yesterday from Meta; you may have heard it. They cited several hundred million accounts that they pull down every quarter. They were unable to give us a denominator, so I don't know if it's significant or completely ineffective. But what sorts of safeguards would you consider that the committee should look at? Dr Finlay : Again, there are two things we'd highlight. The first is that some of these issues—not in their entirety, but some of these issues—can be viewed through that prism of foreign interference, rather than viewed through the prism of the need for misinformation laws per se. So using the existing mechanisms that we have to deal with those broader impacts that are now being directed through particular technological forms is one thing that can be done. The second, again, is to return to the starting point of the commission's submission, which is that there is no one perfect answer to this; it does require a multifaceted policy response. I think part of the solution is looking at what more technology companies can do to combat that behaviour, but part of it again is ensuring increased digital literacy amongst Australians, ensuring access to a wide variety of information sources and all of the different things that we've spoken about in our submission. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I'll get to media literacy, but there's one thing that is evident—and we heard it from previous witnesses who talked about the fact that a lot of this misinformation and disinformation tends to spike after major events, whether they be natural disasters or, for example, the recent terrorism events. That's highly problematic, because society is incredibly vulnerable at that point. People are scared, they're frightened, and they're looking for guidance, and we get a surge of really unreliable material online. What kinds of safeguards should we consider in that period? I do note that Japan, for example, is considering suspending monetisation of social media, on social media platforms, in the immediate aftermath of natural disasters, where it is really, really important that people get good advice from credible emergency sources. Dr Finlay : Again, I think the impact, in terms of situations of emergency, is something that the commission has previously considered as part of our COVID-19 pandemic report and is continuing to consider now, in the subsequent work we are doing around emergency responses, because they're really clear examples where not only is access to accurate and truthful information important, but rapid and immediate access to rapid and truthful information is important. We've seen examples, and I think, in an opinion piece that I wrote last year, I gave the example of the Texas floods in July 2025, where some of the misinformation that circulated did have real impacts in terms of complicating disaster recovery efforts. So these aren't theoretical issues; they're things that do have real impacts. The challenge that comes with those types of policy responses, such as the one that Japan is thinking about, is borne out by simply looking at the fact that Australia's pandemic emergency response, for example, was measured not in hours or days or weeks but in years, in terms of the states of emergency that were declared, so there is a danger that needs to be thought through in terms of any approaches that are designed specifically for immediate emergency responses potentially stretching on and having a disproportionate impact on human rights more broadly. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: So maybe short-term and targeted might be a better way to approach it? Dr Finlay : I think, again, the rights based response in total, in terms of thinking about the competing and conflicting impacts on the full range of human rights, is critical. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Sure. You mentioned how algorithms—and we've talked about this—amplify outrage and false content. What specific transparency measures should we consider in that regard? Dr Finlay : The one that has really become apparent to me, from listening to some of the evidence that has been given before the committee, is the starting point of researchers simply having access to information that would allow them to better understand how these things are operating. Without that first step being taken, it's really difficult to formulate effective policy responses beyond that. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: So I asked Meta this yesterday, and they said that most people actually like the feeds that they get and they don't want a completely uncurated feed. That's the justification they gave for not even offering the choice to the Australian people. What are your thoughts on that? Dr Finlay : I would always lean to favouring the idea of choice being given to individuals in order for them to make decisions about how they're engaging and interacting with technology. I'm not a technical expert in that sense, in terms of understanding what is or isn't possible, but the idea of more choice rather than less always seems, to me, to be a good default. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: On notice, if you could provide us that op-ed you wrote, that would be amazing. CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Roberts. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Dr Finlay, for appearing again. I appreciate your concise and clear responses. They're much appreciated. There are key words in society: safety—I'm sure you'd agree; freedom, which you've already explained very, very succinctly and powerfully; free and open debate as a part of freedom; responsibility; and choice. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but responsibility, as I see it, comes from people having choice. Dr Finlay : Correct. Senator ROBERTS: Otherwise they're dictated to and lorded over. Dr Finlay : And, more to the point, it comes from people having rights. I have human rights, and you have human rights, but we also have responsibility for respecting each other's rights. Senator ROBERTS: Right, and humans largely develop responsibility when we have choice. Dr Finlay : I'd agree with that. Senator ROBERTS: Otherwise, we will be relying on 'big brother' government looking after us and 'big brother' government telling us what we can and can't say and what we can and can't do, which eliminates choice, and then we've got drones. Are you aware that there is censorship already and that it's been in existence on climate for 45 years. Dr Finlay : I'm aware there's censorship on a whole range of issues. Senator ROBERTS: Some of that censorship is not government imposed. It's not legislated. It's done by labels and smears. Maurice Strong, who fabricated the climate change claims for his own agendas and for the UN agenda, cultivated a response and drove this around the world. There are senators in this building who call me a climate denier, and that's deliberately tied to Holocaust—that doesn't bother me; it shows they have a lack of argument. But it does suppress some people's voices. I know of prominent academics who have got the data that shows that the climate change claims are fabricated. They are afraid to speak up because of censorship—either from being labelled anti-environment, which they are definitely not, or from not getting access to grants or data from the CSIRO. So we've already got a lot of censorship in place. Dr Finlay : Can I perhaps say that I can't comment on those specific examples, but, at a general level, one of the points that we have made repeatedly is there is a real risk when misinformation is used as a label that allows the stifling of debate. The mischaracterisation of different perspectives, different opinions or people asking legitimate questions about scientific consensus, for example, is not misinformation per se. What we're talking about strictly when we talk about mis- and disinformation is something much narrower and different. Unfortunately, in the general public landscape, the term has taken on a much broader and much vaguer meaning. Senator ROBERTS: Isn't it also true that overregulating has many harmful consequences, as you said, but it also leads governments to not be trusted, which undermines the fabric of our society? Dr Finlay : We'd agree with that. Senator ROBERTS: It's a very serious issue for governments. When they overregulate, they destroy their own trust, and I'm not talking now about the Albanese government. I'm talking about governments—plural. Dr Finlay : At a philosophical level, I will say that there is a real risk that, if government is seen as not protecting environments that allow for free expression and if it's seen as being overly censorious, then that does have an impact of undermining public trust in government and authoritative institutions. Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate you being open in saying that you're not a technical expert. Neither am I. We've got to skate across so many issues and literally not delve into them, but this one's particularly important. You're talking about stronger transparency requirements for digital platforms. Are you advocating standards to be attained, not prescriptions on how to do it? Dr Finlay : I can't give an absolute answer to that. What we would say is, certainly, voluntary standards are always a welcome step and, in our view, would be preferable to prescription or legislative responses. However, that doesn't mean that legislative responses are never warranted. Perhaps I can give this example. I know that there was some media attention given to our submission, where it was stated that the Australian Human Rights Commission was advocating for the introduction of a broad, sweeping misinformation law to prevent any disagreement on discussion around climate change or any different opinions around climate change— Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: It was a total distortion of your submission, by the way. Dr Finlay : Thank you. CHAIR: You should take that as a compliment, Dr Finlay. Dr Finlay : We would agree with that being a distortion. The point I was wanting to make, Senator Roberts, is that that was a distortion of our submission. We're certainly not advocating for that. We accept the fact that misinformation is a real problem that has real consequences. We do note that, in certain specific, targeted areas, there may be requirements for legislation. In fact, there already is legislation that targets false information in Australia in different respects. I think particularly of legislation, for example, around providing information about the process of voting that's contained in the Electoral Act. In terms of targeted approaches to specific problems, we think there could be a role to play for law, but the starting point should always be a multifaceted policy response that reflects that the law itself is a blunt tool. In terms of the need to protect freedom of expression, it can often have a disproportionate impact. Senator ROBERTS: At the fundamental level in this debate is the fact—I believe it's a fact—that some platforms have a monopoly on social media. If we had a truly free market, then, if I didn't like Meta, for example, because it censors people, I'd shift to someone else. If I didn't like X, because it gives people too much free rein and publishes misinformation and disinformation, I'd go to someone else. Is that what we're looking at? Dr Finlay : Again, as I indicated previously in my conversation with the deputy chair, in my view, further choice is always preferable. One of the challenges with the ecosystem that we've created is that people are driven to particular social media platforms based on what their friends, colleagues, families et cetera are using because there is that relationship aspect to them. It means it isn't always purely a matter of individual choice or strict free-market operation. Senator ROBERTS: In my view, X was very left-wing oriented and almost banned people who opposed its views. But when X was bought by Musk, it actually opened things up completely. A lot of people left Facebook, and that must have hurt Facebook's advertising. Free competition would be preferable to prescriptive legislation. Dr Finlay : Again, our concern with prescriptive legislation is that a broad based legislative response that suggests the law can answer all of these questions, inevitably, in my view, will have particular consequences for other human rights. The challenge we've seen in every legislative response that has been brought forward in Australia to date, in terms of the legislation that's being proposed around misinformation and disinformation—I have no doubt that it comes with good intentions, that it's aiming to address what is a real problem, but it does have consequent impacts on other human rights, which, again, is where we see that a full rights based approach is needed to recognise the balance that needs to be struck. Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to your comments about foreign interference posing a growing threat, with evidence of coordinated online operations designed to manipulate climate discourse, distort public debate and influence Australian democratic processes. That's a really complex area. What's foreign and what's not foreign? What is influencing and what's not influencing? Could you elaborate? Dr Finlay : What's information and what's not information? On every point of that question, there are complexities. Again, I don't come before this committee pretending to have a perfect answer to any of these things. One of the first steps that we need to take is to recognise what the problems are. Then, working out what the most effective solutions are is the really challenging aspect. Senator ROBERTS: Your first recommendation is to support independent research on climate related misinformation and its human rights impact. Wouldn't the place to start be getting the empirical scientific data that tells us what's really going on? Dr Finlay : In terms of misinformation and disinformation, Senator— Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Dr Finlay : or in terms of climate change more broadly? Senator ROBERTS: Well, we've had both sides of politics, Liberal and Labor, changing leaders internally because of climate. We've had them change externally because of voters. After 45 years since Maurice Strong fabricated these climate lies and fraud, we're still in turmoil. That would indicate to me there's no clear-cut data. In fact, I have a colleague who's amassed 24,000 datasets on climate and energy from around the world—places like CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, all objective—and there's not one shred of evidence that there's any change in any climate factor—not temperature, not rainfall, not drought, not storms, nothing. It's just natural variability. So we're arguing about rubbish. So wouldn't it be better to somehow—perhaps I'm going a step further— CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. Senator ROBERTS: hold the government accountable by requiring government—this is what the Office of Scientific Quality and Integrity proposal has recommended—to put the science that is claimed to be the basis of their policy on any issue in the public domain and let the people go to it—so, rather than restricting debate, encouraging debate and putting the government on charge? Transparency portals in the United States have worked dramatically well in that regard. So put the claim in the public domain and let people argue. Dr Finlay : Well, perhaps there are two things in that discussion that I think are useful for the commission to comment on. The first is around the question of evidence, including scientific evidence. We certainly recognise the overwhelming scientific consensus around climate change, and that's addressed in, for example, the recent report that was led by the president of the commission around climate change and its effect on human rights. I'd be happy to provide a copy of that work to you, Senator, if that would be useful. Senator ROBERTS: It would be, thanks. Dr Finlay : Certainly. But, even where there is overwhelming scientific consensus, the scientific method encourages further discussion, debate and consideration of that evidence, because that's how we further knowledge. That's how we expand knowledge and either reinforce truth or move forward to find new ideas and further bases for things. The second aspect that I think is really important is that you spoke about the evidence but you also spoke about the broader discussion around climate policy, which isn't just about information but is actually about what we do with that information. What policies should Australia then adopt? What costs are we prepared to bear? What actions should we take on the world stage? They're policy questions that really are at the heart of the public discussion we need to be having, where there may well be reasonable minds disagreeing. That's the space where misinformation and disinformation laws, regulation or policy responses really do have to be very carefully calibrated to make sure that they're not stifling free expression and stifling the very debates that we need to have to get to the best policy outcomes. Senator ROBERTS: Let me check—I just need to check my— CHAIR: Sorry, no. I've got to cut you off here, Senator Roberts, because Senator Canavan's got some questions to ask. Senator Canavan, could you keep it brief, because we are running over time. If you want 10 minutes, we'll have to go 10 minutes into the lunch break with the next witness. Senator CANAVAN: I don't think I'll be anywhere near that, Chair. I'll be very quick. Thank you for your submission and comments. I think it's one of the more sensible positions that have been put to this committee, so I really appreciate that. I do note that apart from the AI act—which I might or might not get time to investigate, but you have that recommendation—you haven't really proposed any strict government oversight apart from transparency and the like. I want to drill down into why you haven't gone that far. Do you think government can be trusted with this type of power? Dr Finlay : I think it's a more basic issue—that, whenever we're thinking about what legislative reform could be proposed, the fundamental challenge we come up with is: how do you define misinformation and disinformation for the purposes of the law? There are many working definitions. People kind of understand what you're meaning in a vernacular sense, but there's no accepted international definition of what we mean by mis- and disinformation, and putting it in legislation in a form that is specific enough to ensure that we're having an approach that doesn't disproportionately capture a wide range of speech that isn't strictly mis- and disinformation is incredibly challenging and is something where we've struggled to find examples that really do meet that mark. That definitional problem is a really significant hurdle to overcome. Senator CANAVAN: Are you at all concerned that the government itself is conflicted in many of these cases? A lot of the claims that have been put to this committee about misinformation—specific claims, specific content—often go to content that's critical of government policy or government actions. Therefore, if our committee were to recommend the government have some sort of direct oversight power of content moderation, how do we tackle the issue that government officials and government agencies will want to preference and defend their own policies? Dr Finlay : Perhaps I could make two quick responses to that. I would like to preface by saying that these responses are hypothetical and not at all intended to be a comment on the existing government or the existing debate in Australia. They're more principled positions we've put forward in past submissions. The first is to recognise that setting up government or any individual body as the sole arbiter of truth on these matters is inherently problematic. The second is to recognise—and this was one of the objections that we had to an earlier draft of the mis- and disinformation law—that government itself can potentially be a source of misinformation. It's important to think through those issues when you're looking at any responses that put government at the centre, to ensure that we're not creating a situation where misinformation can potentially be reinforced without having any alternative channels to address that or setting up government as the sole arbiter of truth. Again, I would absolutely emphasise that that's not intended as a reflection on any existing government. It's a principled hypothetical position. Senator CANAVAN: This is my last question, given the time. What about the influence of corporations? There's been a focus on fossil fuel companies, but in this space now there are also multibillion-dollar companies seeking to build large-scale renewable energy projects. We're going to hear next, I think, from small groups of people who are opposed to those. How do we make sure that social media does provide the benefits you've described this morning—giving avenues to those smaller groups, who are not necessarily well funded and can't afford large-scale advertising budgets—and doesn't just provide a platform giving more power to those with big pockets in the corporate world? Dr Finlay : I think, at a principled level, when you think about what social media was originally intended to be and the democratising effect that it was hoped it would have, it was designed to provide small voices with equivalent power to more prominent, larger voices. I think, unfortunately, one of the impacts that we're talking about in this inquiry is the fact that that hasn't necessarily been borne out through the way that particular voices or pieces of information are amplified or given a much broader audience than others. Again, I think there is no one solution that would guarantee that, but a good starting point is increasing transparency and accountability in terms of the way we approach these issues. Senator CANAVAN: Thanks again. Thank you, Chair. CHAIR: That was until algorithms entered the picture, Dr Finlay. Very quickly—you mentioned the definition of disinformation and misinformation. It's been recommended to the committee in a number of submissions that the Australian government adopt a universal definition. Does the Human Rights Commission agree with that? Dr Finlay : Given that there is no universal definition, we would urge the government to be cautious about any attempt to do so, because it is a really challenging issue— CHAIR: The UN's definition wouldn't count as a universal definition? Dr Finlay : The UN special rapporteur back in 2021 noted that there was no one universally accepted definition. There are a whole lot of different definitions out there. There was a piece that the commission did author around the definitions of mis- and disinformation. If you'd like, if it would be helpful, I could provide that to the committee. CHAIR: That would be great, because the deputy chair has just pointed out that the Australian Electoral Commission has a definition as well. Dr Finlay : That's the definition we use in our submission. It's sort of a working definition. The difference between a general definition that allows you to discuss this issue versus a definition in law that would have that legal precision that you need—that's the real challenge. CHAIR: Thanks, Dr Finlay, and apologies for running over time..