CORMAC, Ms Luana, Branch Head, First Nations and Clean Energy Facilitation Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water [by video link] de HOSSON, Ms Rachael, Branch Head, Climate Change Policy Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water EARL, Mr David, Acting Branch Head, Office of Energy Economics, National Energy Transformation Division, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water HYLES, Mr Andrew, Assistant Secretary, Digital Platforms, International and Policy Branch, Online Safety and Classification Division, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts JOHNSTON, Mr Chris, Branch Head, Climate Active, Risk and Science Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water LOPEZ, Ms Margaret, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Broadcasting, Media and News Policy Division, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts MACKAY, Mr David, Deputy Secretary, Communications and Media Group, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts PENTONY, Ms Alannah, Branch Head, National Inventory Systems and International Reporting Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water VANDENBROEK, Ms Sarah, First Assistant Secretary, Online Safety and Classification Division, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts VERDON, Mr Andrew, Assistant Secretary, News and Journalism Branch, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts WILTSHIRE, Ms Alison, Acting Head of Division, Clean Energy Investment and Facilitation Division, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water [by video link] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand the information on parliamentary privilege and protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. Do you have anything to say about the capacity in which you appear today? Mr Johnston : I am the acting head of division for the Climate Change Policy, Adaptation and Risk Division. CHAIR: Thank you. Would anyone from either department like to make an opening statement? Mr Mackay : Not from our side, Chair. CHAIR: Great. Thank you. We do have plenty of time. I suspect we won't go full time, which you'll be very relieved to know about. I might just start with a question to DCCEEW about the UN Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change. Are you aware of that initiative? Ms de Hosson : We are aware of that initiative. CHAIR: Okay. Are you aware of the outcomes related to this initiative which were arrived at at COP30 in Belem—specifically, the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change at COP30? Ms de Hosson : Yes, we are aware of that. CHAIR: Great. We've obviously seen a number of countries sign on. I think the deputy chair has updated me that there have been 31— Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Thirty-two. CHAIR: Thirty-two countries have signed on, and the EU signed on as a bloc. Are you aware of that? Ms de Hosson : Yes. In particular, my colleagues in our international division are engaged and aware of the progress. CHAIR: Great. Could you give the committee an update on what kind of progress there is around whether our government signs this. I presume it's going to cut across lots of different departments—the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, potentially, and communications and infrastructure, as well as the environment and climate and energy. So could you give us an update on where that's at. Ms de Hosson : Yes, absolutely. Australia's participation in the initiative is under active consideration, including looking at the impacts of joining that. As I said, my colleagues in our international division are currently assessing that, including working with colleagues as appropriate across the Public Service. CHAIR: Did anyone from the department or the minister attend the sessions on this at COP30? Ms de Hosson : I apologise; I don't have that detail with me. I am very happy to take that on notice. CHAIR: Yes, okay. Are you aware that Australia is already a signatory to the Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online, along with other nations? Ms de Hosson : I personally am not aware, but my colleagues in our international division would be very well across that. CHAIR: Are they with us today? Ms de Hosson : Unfortunately, they're not. My apologies. CHAIR: Are you able to tell us what the process is? Does it have to go to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Is it that you will provide advice to respective ministers and then there'll be a whole-of-government decision on that? Ms de Hosson : Yes. Ordinarily, with these processes, the first step will be to provide some advice to Minister Bowen after undertaking analysis on what the implications of the declaration may be. The analysis and implications from that will indicate whether it's a prime ministerial sign-off or a broader consideration. CHAIR: Within that declaration, there's a request for a commitment for some funding to provide a pool for global research on this problem. We can look at individual countries' various strategies for dealing with misinformation and disinformation, and climate information integrity in particular. That is a global approach to this. Does that make it easier for Australia to sign on to something like this—that we have other countries, like in the EU, that have agreed to this? Ms de Hosson : Yes. As part of the consideration, Australia would be looking at the commitments of other countries. We would also be looking at what the implications of that mean for the government and ensuring that that's appropriately considered and advice provided on that. CHAIR: I'll ask the communications and infrastructure department a question. I'll leave sport and everything out of it for the sake of the question. Are you aware of this initiative as well? Presumably, your advice is going to be quite important in regard to this. Mr Mackay : I don't think I've got anything to add to the evidence that you've heard from DCCEEW. I think they would have the lead on a matter like that within our system. CHAIR: DCCEEW has got the lead on it because of climate and energy. Have you been looped in to provide advice to your minister or to— Mr Mackay : Not advice to the minister that I'm aware of at this point, but I think, as colleagues indicated, it is under active consideration. We could take on notice the detail of engagement we've had at officials level, if that's helpful. CHAIR: Okay. Do any other senators have questions on this particular issue? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: The issue of information integrity—the framework—has really been raised by multiple experts during the hearings, including the Australian Human Rights Commission. It's well worth having a read of their submission. I think it's a much more sophisticated way of looking at how we consume information, which is, arguably, as important as clean food, clean water and clean air. Australians have a right to transparent, accurate information from a variety of sources. It's really looking at this through a human rights lens, which I think is quite interesting and sophisticated. I strongly urge you to read as much as you can around it. There's a nice synopsis on the global declaration that we signed in 2023. I don't know which way we're going to go on this, but if we did sign up to it, can you talk us through how something like this would then be disseminated through departments? We are finding that we're having to interact with multiple portfolio ministers: education, communications, energy, the PMO and so on and so forth. This issue of information integrity cuts across the whole of government. From a departmental point of view, how do you all work together? Ms de Hosson : It's a very good question. Perhaps I can start, and hand to colleagues. In terms of how we work together on these cross-cutting issues—they are very much cross-cutting and spread across portfolios—if we were to think about this particular example, the lead would be in DCCEEW, in part of our international area. They would be considering the elements of that agreement and signing on to that and working with relevant agencies where they had input or an equity. That, ordinarily, happens through interdepartmental committees—to get that advice and also to agree on how any implementation would happen from there. CHAIR: I'll run through a couple of the key points, in relation to what we have signed: the Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online. I think it was DFAT that officially signed off on that on 20 September 2023. I presume it would have gone through your department, in terms of advice for the government to sign on to this. I'm not sure if you were actively involved in that. Mr Mackay : As you noted when you read out our title, we are a broad department. To answer that definitively, I'd need to take on notice the question of input into it. You'd appreciate, for instance, that our transport area doing work on vehicle emission standards could well have been as involved as communications in the work that we do. That's probably one that's safest for us to take on notice to consult. CHAIR: I could go through the various components of it now, but there are quite a few. Although we have time, I won't put you through it. Could I ask you to take it on notice. Obviously, as the deputy chair's alluded to, there are some higher level principles around the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right to freedom of opinion and expression et cetera, but there are also some very specific asks for signatories, such as to respond to and monitor the rapid development of emerging technologies, such as generative AI, which, of course, we've talked a lot about in this committee; promote user access to diverse online content; promote and respect pluralistic media and journalism; support initiatives that strengthen civic education online; take active steps to address misinformation and disinformation especially targeted at women, LGBTIQ+ persons et cetera; strengthen the multistakeholder approach to safeguarding information ecosystems online; enhance transparency around algorithms, which is something we've obviously talked a lot about in recent days; and establish effective oversight of algorithmic systems et cetera. I know there is legislation in review currently around these areas more broadly at the moment, but how do you feel we're going in terms of meeting those? Mr Mackay : Because, as you said, DFAT would have the lead on Australia's participation in something like that, the question of assessing progress is probably one to put to DFAT. CHAIR: Would they coordinate that across your group? Mr Mackay : In general, the way these types of things work in the system is that the agency that has the lead on the topic would then coordinate progress reporting, for example. If it's helpful, though, there are some things that you touched on in that list that we can speak to today—for example, the work that we do through the News Media Assistance Program on the importance of local media. Ms Lopez might be able to take you through some of that if that's helpful. Similarly, Mr Hyles could update you on our work through the information resilience working group, which we've established at the official level, which I think goes to some of the elements in the list. The thing that I think we have taken on notice is the input that we had into DFAT's consideration and advice on signing up. On those particular elements, if it's helpful, we could give you a short update on the work that we're doing. Ms Lopez : The government has established the News Media Assistance Program, which recognises local media as critical to the health of democracy, social cohesion and informing communities. As part of that program, the government is providing $99.1 million over three years from 2025-26 in grants for the news sector. It's also providing $33 million over three years from 2025-26 to support the sustainability of the Australian Associated Press, who provide a newswire service. The government also provided $15 million in 2024-25 for the News Media Relief Program, which provided grants to regional, independent and suburban multicultural and First Nations news publishers creating online news content. The government has also committed $10.5 million over four years from 2024-25 for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to implement the Media Diversity Measurement Framework. There's also a mandated minimum commitment for two years from 2025-26 for regional newspaper advertising to support regional news publishers. In terms of additional measures, the government is also developing Australia's first national media literacy strategy, and that will be co-designed in partnership with media literacy research and education sectors and communities. CHAIR: The previous witness told us that some of the details around that were tabled on Friday. Maybe it's coming this Friday. Ms Lopez : A tender was released for the co-design. That was last week—12 February. CHAIR: Excellent. I'm sorry to have interrupted you. Ms Lopez : No, that's okay. That co-design partner will then work with government to develop that media literacy strategy. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: On that topic, can you tell us a little bit about this national media literacy strategy, for the benefit of people listening—why it's important. How are you going to scale this? We just heard from Dr Park, an academic. You would have heard her testimony. She was pretty clear that we need to get in the online space in order to disseminate this kind of information, because that's where people are at. So I'm interested to hear a little bit more about it. Ms Lopez : Yes. I think that's definitely a consideration that government has been focusing on in developing that strategy and establishing the key skills and competencies that Australians will need, particularly to navigate the challenges, as well as the opportunities, in a digital world. What we're looking to do as part of that tender co-design process is establish a national definition of 'media literacy'; articulate key concepts that will underpin the strategy; look at future initiatives that may flow from the strategy; include a consultation plan and facilitate broad consultation, including consultation with community, industry and academia; provide specialised advice about emerging communication technologies—issues that we're seeing in that space, such as with artificial intelligence, that are impacting or have the potential to impact the ability of Australians to critically engage with news and media; and look at identifying vulnerable groups that might be in need of a more targeted approach in terms of their media literacy. We understand that media literacy is the ability to critically engage with media across all aspects of daily life, and this includes things like identifying mis- and disinformation and understanding the intent behind media content. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Australians are very high on the list of avoiding news, actually. That's what Dr Park's testimony revealed, and she's got some data to back that up. So I think we've got a bit of a mountain to climb on this, but it's really great to see this work continue. Chair, do you mind if I ask one more question related to this? CHAIR: Sure. I've got one, then I'll go to Senator Canavan, who's got questions too. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: On the issue of emerging technologies, AI chatbots are obviously the big one now on the horizon. It was raised by a witness earlier today—that search is dead and it's now all AI driven. What is your thinking in terms of the worst-case scenario? I always think of the worst-case scenario first, not the status quo. The worst case would be that, into the future, legacy media like Newswire, which we're funding to the tune of $33 million, would be ranked down by the OpenAIs of this world or by Gemini or whatever. Australians, then, would be just basically seeing a whole bunch of other slop instead of the quality journalism that is really struggling in this country. What kinds of safeguards are you thinking about now to prevent this kind of scenario from emerging in the future? You don't have to have a full answer—just thinking or blue-sky thinking. Mr Hyles : It's probably fair to say that the two divisions—Ms Lopez's division on media and news and the digital platforms division—work quite closely together on things to do with the information environment and information integrity. For quite some time, we have worked through interdepartmental committees, for example, and we've recently set up an information resilience working group across government to understand the issues and pressures that other agencies see and find in relation to these issues. We work quite closely with other agencies. We chair that group. We bring that group together to share information across government. We've got a couple of things in place at the moment. There's the Digital Industry Group. They have their Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, which actually includes commitments to ensuring that news and journalism are prominent and promoted as reliable, trusted sources of information. We support them in the efforts that they're making to have more signatories—industry platforms, for example—sign up to that. Similarly, the government has also recently committed to implement a digital duty of care. We're working through that process at the moment to ensure that platforms are providing safe services to their users. That would go to things like trusted and reliable sources of information being presented. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: On the digital duty of care, my only ask to you would be to consider safeguards for the worst-case scenario down the track. They may be all playing ball right now, but in 20 years time they may not, and we may have a situation like with the social media companies where they've lost social licence and we've slapped controls on them. Thank you. Over to you, Chair. CHAIR: In relation to the digital duty of care, are you able to tell us whether you're considering looking at, for example, algorithmic content? One of the asks in the international initiative—we've received a lot of evidence around the role that algorithms play in spreading misinformation and disinformation as one particular issue, especially on climate change. The other thing we've heard is that access to data is a big issue for researchers, especially on algorithmic curation. Is this something you're considering in the framework of the digital duty of care bill? Mr Hyles : That's all subject to advice to government, so we can't necessarily go into detail here at this stage, but we have definitely consulted widely on the duty of care in terms of trying to understand stakeholders' concerns and the issues that underpin the government's commitment to implement the duty of care. They have gone to some of the issues that you have raised. We have consulted widely across Commonwealth government agencies around implementing the duty of care as well, so we're getting that feedback from others, including the department of industry, who leads the AI policy work. CHAIR: Does it include AI and use of deepfakes? Mr Hyles : There are already arrangements in place that deal with deepfakes under the Online Safety Act, but in terms of— CHAIR: In terms of disinformation or behaviour that the signatories to the code are required to take down? Mr Hyles : Yes. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I thought that was only for child abuse. It's not for dead whales on a beach with wind turbines in the background or extremist content. Mr Hyles : No, that's right. The complaints based schemes—yes. The DIGI code does, I think, go on to those issues as well. CHAIR: Under the voluntary code—perhaps we can get into that in a minute. I'm interested in something you said there, Mr Hyles, about you providing some advice to other departments on how to deal with the information environment. This is a question I had for later, but I'll ask it now. In our processes in recent months around submissions, we've found that AI is a problem. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: It's huge. CHAIR: We've had some submitters who have provided content that's not factual. It's led to all sorts of issues for the committee and our resourcing. How big of an issue is this for a department like DCCEEW, for example, where you're dealing with a number of projects and you're going through submission processes? I think the Senate itself, as an organisation, is looking at this and how we're going to deal with this in the future. We obviously have lots of inquiries and receive lots of information, and we're seeing this proliferation, this tsunami, of AI submissions. We've seen projects get binned because of AI generated submissions. How are you guys dealing with this? I don't know if that goes directly to what you're advising, Mr Hyles, but I'd be interested to hear from both of you, if that's okay. Mr Hyles : From our perspective, it's clearly an economy-wide problem. It's not just government departments that face this problem; it's right across the sector and right across the economy. This is very squarely in the department of industry's space, so it's probably better not to venture in there, but certainly in terms of the conversations that we have across government in relation to information resilience, ensuring that there are trusted and reliable sources of information for people to make their own judgements about the kind of content that they consume is important. That is going to the core of why we provide—what is it?—$1.6 billion a year to the national broadcasters for the work that they do, including high-quality news and journalism. It's an important issue. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Mr Hyles, I think you misunderstand. That's not really the question. We're more concerned about the community engagement process where people are sending in submissions that are basically AI slop. There's a great example from Rainforest Reserves Australia—completely discredited, falsified the evidence, used AI—which has led to the cancellation of a $1 billion wind farm in Queensland which is significant— Senator ROBERTS: Chair, that's a completely— CHAIR: Are you taking a point of order? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: No. You'll have your turn, Senator Roberts. CHAIR: Sorry. Any senator can take a point of order. What's your point of order? Senator ROBERTS: My point of order is that that was a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation— CHAIR: That's not a point of order. Senator ROBERTS: That's misinformation. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Read the newspapers if you don't believe me. To follow on from the chair's question, how are you thinking around the challenges associated with AI generated submissions on a variety of projects? Mr Mackay : As in submissions to our department? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: To you, to the department. Mr Mackay : I echo Mr Hyles's comment. I think this is something that every organisation that engages in those kinds of consultation processes is grappling with. I don't think we have a firm position as an organisation on that question. Although, as you rightly say, it's one that we are all very conscious of. CHAIR: To give you an example—I'll only go to the kinds of things we have been discussing amongst ourselves in the committee here—if someone makes a submission to, let's say, an approval process for any kind of project, is there some kind of process where they've got to say whether they've used AI or some kind of software that can detect AI? I suppose we're interested in where you're at in terms of dealing with this kind of thing. What concerns me is that you can say, 'I've made a mistake because I used AI,' but I also don't know if that hides deliberate misinformation or disinformation. Ms de Hosson : Perhaps I can make some remarks on behalf of DCCEEW. Part of our job is to ensure that, when we are running consultation processes and community engagement, we are engaging in the submissions that come in, analysing that information and ensuring we give it due consideration. Part of that challenge is being able to navigate through evidence and information and being able to take a critical eye to that. To echo colleagues here, it's a challenge that organisations are facing, but, as part of our processes, we would take a really close look at submissions and look at the voracity in the information as we provide advice— CHAIR: Do you have software at the moment that can help detect the use of AI? Do you have a policy around requiring people to disclose whether they've used AI? Ms de Hosson : Not to my knowledge. I don't think we have a policy across the department on that. CHAIR: Is that something you'd be advising on, Mr Hyles, in terms of what you said earlier about providing information resilience to other departments? Mr Hyles : At this stage, the working group is only newly established, so one of the purposes of it is to first do a stocktake across government to see what's happening in each agency and department and what challenges and issues they are facing. That's very much a work in progress. CHAIR: Senator Canavan, did you have some questions? Senator CANAVAN: Yes, I've got some questions. Thanks for appearing this afternoon. I just want to confirm some evidence from earlier. Did you say that the federal government is funding AAP to the tune of $33 million at the moment? Mr Mackay : That's correct, $33 million over three years from 2025-26. Senator CANAVAN: And that's for their news wire service? Ms Lopez : Yes, that's right. Mr Mackay : So it's $11 million per year. Senator CANAVAN: You're probably aware the AAP also run a fact check service. It's still relied upon by Meta at least for another 12 months. I'm a little concerned about so much government funding going to the related company of the fact checker and about that amount of money potentially influencing the fact checks. Are there any particular guardrails in the funding that you provided to prevent the fact checking operations being distorted by such a large amount of government funding? Ms Lopez : In terms of the arrangement that AAP may have with Meta, that's a commercial arrangement between AAP and Meta. It's not something that forms part of the arrangement and the grant that they have with government. Senator CANAVAN: Okay. I suppose you've answered my question, but my question is: have you put any thought into protecting the integrity of what Australians rely on? I think there is a broader issue here about the unfortunate situation where government has to fund media organisations, and I understand the rationale for that. But the concern now is the independent investigative journalism we want is somewhat compromised by their relationship with the governments that they're often being relied on to investigate. Either in terms of this AAP deal, or, more broadly, have you put your mind to that and worked out a way to make sure this funding does not interfere with the work that we want journalists to do to investigate everyone in society, definitely including governments? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Sorry, I didn't think that the news wire was the same as the fact-checking units. I thought they were separate, but if you could clarify. CHAIR: We'll let the department answer the question. Ms Lopez : Sorry, senators, I'm just conferring here. In terms of the risk that you've raised there around the government investment that's been made in AAP and the potential for influence, in terms of their reporting, yes, that is something that we have considered, and the government's obviously running a range of different grants in this space. That is a risk that we are managing through the grant agreement process in terms of ensuring that there is still independence in terms of the reporting that's been made by entities that may be receiving Commonwealth funding in this space. Senator CANAVAN: Can you provide me a little more detail on what those measures you've taken to mitigate that risk are? Ms Lopez : In terms of what the specific wording is in the grant agreement, we may need to take that on notice. But we can certainly do that. Senator CANAVAN: Is this funding competitively tendered or does the government choose the entities? How did we work out who we'd fund? Ms Lopez : In terms of the previous grants that I mentioned around News MAP, that is through a grant assessment process. The grant to AAP is direct funding to AAP for that specific service. Senator CANAVAN: With the grant funding, are the ultimate recipients decided by the minister? Ms Lopez : No. Senator CANAVAN: Is there an independent panel or something? Ms Lopez : Yes, that's correct. It's currently being administered by the Business Grants Hub. They are assessing grants against the guidelines that have been set for the program. Senator CANAVAN: Some of the grants do need ministerial sign-off; but these don't? They don't actually go to the minister to be signed off? Ms Lopez : That's correct. The guidelines are approved by the minister, but the minister isn't involved in terms of determining the grant recipients. Senator CANAVAN: In terms of the AAP decision, was that simply a decision of cabinet or government to fund them? There was no actual assessment in that regard? Ms Lopez : For AAP, yes, that was a decision of government. Senator CANAVAN: Thanks for that. Just turning to the UN information integrity framework—I think that's how it's described. Does that require signatories or countries to, in any way, assess information or content that's produced about climate in their own countries? Ms de Hosson : I think we'll have to take that question on notice for you and come back in terms of that detail. Senator CANAVAN: Okay. There was some talk of the framework requiring signatories to provide funding. How much funding would Australia need to provide if it signed up to this framework? Ms de Hosson : Whether we would sign up is under active consideration, and part of that consideration would involve any action that the government would need to take. Senator CANAVAN: Without quantifying it then, do you have to provide funding to the framework as a signatory? Ms de Hosson : I think we'll have to come back to you on notice as to whether a signatory would be required to provide funding or whether that would be part of an alternative— CHAIR: Senator Canavan, my understanding is it's a maximum contribution of $2 million and it's voluntary when you sign on to the principles. Senator CANAVAN: Okay. Thanks, Chair. Moving to a different topic, I've raised a few times in this inquiry the experience through COVID, particularly the fact that during COVID the Australian government—facilitated through the Department of Home Affairs but also involving a range of departments—sought to censor over 4,000 social media posts by applying some pressure to social media companies. I think it was a pretty regrettable time in our public policy. Is there any government action or communication with social media companies to in any way censor, deprioritise or shadowban—whatever you want to call it—the social media posts of Australians? Ms Vandenbroek : That isn't something that we would do within our portfolio. Those posts wouldn't be captured under any of the provisions in the Online Safety Act, so it's not something that the eSafety Commissioner would have any powers to take any action on. Senator CANAVAN: The eSafety Commissioner does provide notices from time to time to social media companies to take down content, doesn't she? Ms Vandenbroek : She does, if the content is captured under one of the four schemes that are in the Online Safety Act. Senator CANAVAN: Can we get a comprehensive list of all of the times that the eSafety Commissioner has sought to take down content or requested that content be taken down by social media companies in the last two years? Ms Vandenbroek : I'm not sure of the extent to which the commissioner discloses that information. We can certainly take on notice to find out what we can provide. Senator CANAVAN: Keep in mind this is a parliamentary inquiry. If you were to deny such a request, you'd have to come up with a public interest reason. I'm not sure what that would be, given it is the communication of Australians and it's the Australian government doing it. I think it would be very important for our committee to have that information. Mr Mackay : I understand the point that you're raising about public interest immunity et cetera. I think Ms Vandenbroek's point is that it is information not held by the department. We will engage with the eSafety Commissioner on the question that you've asked, but we're not really in a position to say in the hearing today whether or not it's something that they will agree to provide. I understand the point that you're making, then, about the implications of that, but it's not something we can answer definitively. We'll take the request on notice, and we'll engage with e-Safety. Senator CANAVAN: Thank you. Has there been any review within government of those actions to censor over 4,000 posts during COVID? Mr Mackay : As I understand it, those requests related to other portfolios, so we wouldn't know the answer to that question. Senator CANAVAN: I'm just trying to work out, because we're over the phone—is the person responding from the department of communications? Mr Mackay : That's correct. Senator CANAVAN: You have responsibility for social media policy, but there's been no attempt to look at how the interaction between the government and the various social media companies occurred, at least within your department, since COVID? Mr Mackay : No. I would distinguish our work on online safety from the individual interactions that government agencies might have with social media platforms in their own right, as users. Senator CANAVAN: I think the topic has been very well covered since COVID. There has obviously been much more of this activity in the United States, with the Facebook files, Twitter files et cetera. It does surprise me that there's been no attempt to go back and have a look at what exactly did happen and whether or not it had merit. Moving on to my final topic, I noticed a few years ago the minister for energy, Mr Bowen, put up a video about nuclear energy, in which there were pictures of radioactive waste in 40-gallon drums, with the radioactive symbol on them and green ooze coming out of them, in a field. It would appear that those images were generated by artificial intelligence. Has the department ever played a role in providing the minister or the minister's office with AI videos or images of radioactive material? Ms de Hosson : The government's role in terms of supporting the minister is to provide advice, information and evidence. The department runs its own social media channels and its website, and the minister is responsible for his own social media channels. Senator CANAVAN: Do you have a policy about whether or not you do provide content that's AI generated to the minister's office? Ms de Hosson : I'd have to take on notice whether there is a written policy. As I said, our role is very much around providing the minister and his office with information, evidence and advice to support any communications that the minister may undertake. Senator CANAVAN: I'm sure you are familiar with the national climate risk assessment released last year. That report concluded that climate change could increase heat-related deaths by 444 per cent. It was very high profile. When people went through the report, they found that that figure came from a study in 2014 by a professor at the University of Canberra. That study actually showed that while heat deaths would rise by 732 because of climate change, cold-related deaths would fall by 1,629. That latter fact was completely omitted from the risk assessment. Has there been any errata issued to the risk assessment to outline the fact that, actually, in net terms, climate change would lead to a reduction in temperature-related deaths? Mr Johnston : The national climate risk assessment was published by the Australian Climate Service. I have to check with them about the status of any errata. Senator CANAVAN: Thank you. CHAIR: In relation to AI, we talked a bit earlier about what processes departments are using to detect AI and to deal with perhaps misleading content that may be generated by AI or otherwise. But I'm also interested in your thoughts about the fact that generative AI can generate thousands of what appear to be unique submissions. This doesn't just apply to renewable energy projects; it could apply to anything. Since I've been in the Senate, we've always had form submissions and different things that we can use to kind of detect, I suppose, the organics of some of these submissions. But is this increasingly an issue? We've seen that the misinformation and disinformation bill in the last parliament had a very big online campaign generated around it. I suspect Advance is probably behind a lot of that, which is quite ironic. Nevertheless is there a way to determine whether this is true grassroots or organic concern or whether these things are being used to manipulate public consultation processes? Mr Mackay : I think the Mr Hyles might have touched on before the information-sharing work that the information resilience working group is doing in its early stages. I imagine that will be one of the topics that will be discussed. I think it is also properly something for each agency that engages in public consultation processes or regulators who call for submissions on a proposal—whatever it might be—to make their own risk assessments and judgements about the appropriate way to manage those and other risks related to that kind of consultation process. So I don't think we have a fixed view or a precise answer to give at this point, unless Mr Hyles wants to add anything from the working group. Mr Hyles : No. It's like so much with AI; it's a double-edged sword, because it could also potentially help people make submissions to government. So you do obviously need to be careful in terms of not shutting out the opportunity for people to have their say. CHAIR: Good luck grappling with that one. I totally respect what you're saying, by the way. But yes, it's a dark cloud on the horizon, I think. Deputy Chair. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: On the topic of the community submissions, let's just circle back to the AI. We're in this era of AI. Anecdotally, have either of your departments seen an increase in the quantum of submissions from the community for any type of call? In the last few years, has there been an upwards trend? Mr Mackay : I was going to ask if you were going to put a timeframe on it, because I think it would be challenging to answer. We can take that on notice. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: That would be great. Mr Mackay : Should we say over the last two years? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: No, I think we need more data points. Maybe the last five years? Mr Mackay : I think that will start to get challenging to answer accurately, just in terms of the amount of information that we would have to gather across the department. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: You pick. I don't need it across the department. Pick a few core topics that were raised and have a look at the submissions and provide the committee with something. That would be useful. We don't need it across the whole of the department. Mr Mackay : We'll see what we can provide. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Anecdotally, speaking to your point, Ms de Hosson, do you think that there has been an increase in the amount of time you are spending on these submissions? Is it more resource intensive given the fact that AI hallucinates—it creates references where there are none—and falsifies data? Ms de Hosson : I think it really depends on which policy or program we are talking about. The department obviously deals in matters that are of keen interest to the community, and it's really important that we hear those views and understand those views and that we are capturing a very wide range of views to inform our policy. So the time spent to undertake good community engagement and stakeholder consultation is time well spent. In terms of the number of submissions across the department, I think there will be issues which will absolutely garner more than others. We do know that providing information and ensuring that there are not information gaps and vacuums can help when we are doing community consultation and that, in the absence of that, you can have communities that don't have as much trust. In terms of being able to quantify it, we would need to take that on notice, but we do absolutely want to ensure that we engage appropriately and do commit the resources. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: What about infrastructure? For example, the social media ban would have garnered a lot of community interest. Did you see an increase in the amount of time you were spending per submission or during this compared to previous years? I'm just concerned that in the era of AI these submissions may be creating more work for departments. Mr Mackay : I don't think we could answer that question, because we don't generally track staff workloads to that degree of granularity; in terms of how many minutes per submission. I think it would be challenging to answer. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Anecdotally, what sort of feedback did you get from your staff reviewing this? Mr Mackay : I don't think we're in a position to speculate. CHAIR: You could get some tips off the big four consulting companies if you wanted to do that, just quietly. Mr Mackay : I'll take that as a comment. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: The other question I have—just take this on notice—is regarding AAP. My understanding was that the newswire and the fact-checking operations are separate? If you could, just take that on notice. Mr Mackay : We might be able to— Ms Lopez : That's correct; they are separate. The fact-checking, as I said, is a commercial arrangement that AAP has with Meta or others that they may be contracting with. The newswire service that they're providing has received funding from government, as I outlined earlier. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Thank you for clearing that up. I just want to turn to the DIGI-developed voluntary code on misinformation and disinformation. I raised this yesterday with Meta and TikTok, citing the summary that ACMA presents to government, and I was alarmed at the amount of misinformation content that Meta, in particular, has removed over the last three years. I described it as having fallen off a cliff. They could not supply to me any clarity as to what the breakdown of that misinformation content was in themes. Do you have that data? Or is this something that the department is looking at with that level of granularity? What is this misinformation about? Is it political interference? Is it scams? Is it extremist content? Is it climate problems? Is it public health issues? Mr Hyles : The Australian Communications and Media Authority has appeared before the committee already. They actively review the annual reporting that comes out of that code, so I think they're best placed to answer a question like that, because they work on this directly. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Do you have any input into this sort of code? Do you advise ACMA at all? Mr Hyles : No. ACMA manages this one. They have lead responsibility for this one. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: There was a glaring omission of 'disinformation' in that report. It cited misinformation content, but, on disinformation, it was silent, which made me think, 'How are they not in breach of their own code if they're not presenting data on disinformation?' Has the department done any thinking about how we can quantify the spread, and also the removal, of disinformation on platforms like Meta, TikTok and so on? Mr Hyles : It's probably fair to say that this goes to a complex issue. Some of the platforms' actions go to their managing of bot accounts, for example. They have, as I understand it, fairly sophisticated systems in place to actively remove bot accounts when they're detected. In some cases, they're removing thousands—tens of thousands, potentially—of bot accounts per year. From time to time, we get information from the platforms about how they're responding to particular instances—for example, how they responded to the stabbing incidents in Bondi last year and how they're responding to the Bondi incident late last year. We do get to see some of that information, but it's probably fair to say that their systems have evolved to address these sorts of issues, particularly in relation to inauthentic behaviour. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: And yet there is a civic group Reset.Tech, who put out a report at the end of last year called The dormant danger. I don't know if you're familiar with this report. I've read it cover to cover. They are scathing of Meta in saying that Meta only takes down a fraction of these inauthentic networks. So I'm not sure what they're selling you, but we weren't sold. Mr Hyles : Yes. Reset.Tech do good work. In the independent research that they do, I think they look not just in Australia but in the European Union, for example, as well. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Why isn't that information that you got, say, after the Bondi attack, publicly available? Mr Mackay : That's really a question for ACMA, as the regulator that has operational responsibility and independence, rather than for the department. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I think this is a national security threat, to be honest—election interference, scams, public health, extremism. This is national security writ large and flashing red. It's also been identified by the World Economic Forum as a top-shelf risk—I'm talking about misinformation and disinformation. Is this something that you're considering incorporating into the digital duty of care? Is it on your horizon? We're trying, as a committee, to think of how we can tackle this systemically without a whack-a-mole approach where we're just looking at content, which is where the platforms want us to look, rather than upstream. Ms Vandenbroek : It certainly won't be covered under the duty of care. The duty of care is not relevant to mis- and disinformation; it's more about systemic moves to detect, prevent and mitigate reasonably foreseeable harms caused online. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: It sounds exactly like it should be looking at that. I've just cited a whole list of harms driven by disinformation and coordinated inauthentic behaviour. Mr Hyles : But it's at a systems and processes level, not about individual pieces of content. That's the critical thing. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Can you explain that further. I don't understand. You've just said it's about looking at harms, so— Mr Hyles : Harms within the scope of the Online Safety Act. Ms Vandenbroek mentioned before the four or five different types of schemes that exist under the Online Safety Act. It's within the scope of that existing act. It's not intending to broaden the scope of that act. CHAIR: Can I just ask—with your indulgence, Deputy Chair— Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Yes. CHAIR: what the similarities are with the Online Safety Act. I suppose the review underway is going to look at this, but, with the digital services approach that the EU's adopted in terms of reporting prevalence data for the various harms that have been set out in their legislation, are there some similarities? I don't understand the technical side of it enough. Mr Hyles : We've certainly looked at the Digital Services Act and the approach that the European Commission is adopting. We've also similarly talked to counterparts in the United Kingdom about the duty of care that they have. There are definitely similarities. I can't necessarily go into a whole lot of detail because it is subject to the advice that we're providing to government. It's under active consideration. CHAIR: I think we've had almost unanimous evidence—there might have been one or two exceptions who recommended that climate disinformation criminalised—that said to steer away from being arbiters of truth. Go upstream and focus on accountability and transparency. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: And risk mitigation. CHAIR: Yes—risk mitigation, harm mitigation, duty of care, risk assessment approaches—and then use that to inform future policies. It didn't sound controversial. I can't imagine many people would push back on that in the public. I was interested in whether that kind of approach is being considered. Mr Mackay : I think we've probably gone as far as we can in terms of describing the breadth of what we're engaging with and looking at in forming advice to government on the digital duty of care. To go any further than that would be to start to speculate about where government might land. CHAIR: Could I ask if you're doing any work or if there's any chance of advice to government on further legislation down the track like a digital services act like we've seen in the EU or the UK? The UK's obviously legislated something similar that we've also received pretty positive feedback on. Mr Mackay : Our focus at this point is on supporting the government on its commitment to the duty of care. I think questions about other legislation are really matters for government to consider. CHAIR: Yes, but you're the experts, right? You've got to provide advice on that. I wanted to know if there was any work underway on that. Mr Mackay : Our focus at this point is on the duty of care. CHAIR: I don't think anyone really wants to see the approach we had in the last parliament to this either, by the way. I know it was controversial. There were some really good things in that legislation, in my opinion, but I won't— Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I have one more question. CHAIR: Yes, certainly. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I want to turn to researchers and the role of civic society in holding big tech to account. They absolutely have a role. Sure, we've got DIGI, but I'm pretty underwhelmed by the quality of data that is going to ACMA, which then goes to government. I think we've interrogated that fully in this committee. Researchers have a really important role in this space. We've heard time and time again of the challenges they're facing in getting access to public content libraries and also the ad libraries. Meta tends to pull the ads down, and then these ads disappear. The feedback I've received is that it becomes very difficult for researchers to then understand what was wrong with this ad, how they can learn from it and so on and so forth. I wanted to ask you whether you've had these sorts of conversations with researchers in Australia. We've had submissions which have been sent to us confidentially, and that'll bring me to another point. Ms Vandenbroek : Yes, we certainly have. As part of the initial round of consultation on the digital duty of care, we met with researchers and research organisations, and we certainly heard their concerns about access to data and reliable data for research. It's something that will form part of our advice to government, in terms of the different options that might be available. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Brilliant. The EU have put Meta and TikTok in breach by making data access too difficult for their researchers. The other thing, which follows on from this, is that we had testimony just yesterday on the use of sock-puppet accounts for investigative research. There are instances anecdotally of researchers who have used this mechanism and then faced adversarial attacks from Meta. There's a wider problem here with researchers fearing for their livelihood and their wellbeing in doing this kind of work and taking it up to a tech giant. So (1) I guess we've talked a bit about access, and you're across it, but (2) what kind of legal protections are you considering for researchers in Australia to do this kind of work without fear? Ms Vandenbroek : That's part of what we're considering. We've certainly heard the same as you have about the sock puppets and the concerns with those, from a range of different users of those accounts. So it's part of what we're considering. It's one of the options. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: What implications will it have for this discussion around researcher access and legal protection? What implications does this have for the newly incoming AI Safety Institute—which I think will be nested in your department? Mr Mackay : No, the AI Safety Institute will be in the department of industry. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Oh, in DISR—sorry; forgive me. What implications do you think it would have on that? Mr Mackay : I think that's really a question for industry. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: But you're thinking of these risks already. Mr Mackay : Yes, but if your question is what implications that will have for the AI safety function in industry then I don't think we can assess that. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: But are you sharing the concerns you have through your information resilience task force with other departments? Mr Hyles : We have a number of conversations across government agencies, including particularly with the department of industry. They're ongoing conversations, particularly around AI and work they're doing. I think these issues are relatively well understood. And certainly, as Ms Vandenbroek said, we've received the same sort of feedback that you have—that there are researchers that literally live in the EU to be protected by their— Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: That's right—Australian researchers who are in the EU to be protected. It's outrageous. To be clear, Facebook made—and I wrote this down; I got the Parliamentary Library to do some math for me—$1.4 billion from the Australian market, and they paid $38 million in tax. That is Facebook, which is just a component of Meta. So they are making bank out of Australians, yet they are creating hurdles and hoops for our researchers. It's not on. Thank you very much. CHAIR: Thank you. I've got more questions on some other things, but I'll go to you now, Senator Roberts. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Well, I've been sitting here for over an hour listening to you, so I've got some questions sorted out. The first question is on something the committee undertook to ask on behalf of Responsible Future Illawarra this morning. Did the department of climate change listen to that? Ms de Hosson : The advice I've got is that we understand that there was a vessel undertaking surveys of the region on behalf of the Australian Hydrographic Office, but that work was unrelated to the Illawarra offshore declared area and any associated licence activities. Senator ROBERTS: So there are no other surveys in association with the wind turbines? Ms de Hosson : Not to my knowledge. Our experts on offshore wind unfortunately aren't here this afternoon, so I'd have to take that on notice to make sure there are absolutely no other surveys. But the one that was referred to this morning was not related. Senator ROBERTS: Could each department tell me the definition of 'misinformation'? Mr Hyles : I think you could look to the misinfo-disinfo bill that we had before parliament to see what definitions we came up with at the time. Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Department of climate change? Ms de Hosson : Yes, I'd refer to my colleague's answer on that aspect. Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me if this is acceptable, or accurate: under rational thought, misinformation is a claim or communication whose content is materially false or misleading when tested against transparent logic, verifiable evidence and contextually complete framing, regardless of the speaker's intent. Is that it? Mr Mackay : I'd probably take you to the definition of 'misinformation' that's in the code of practice that we were discussing a moment ago. That code defines 'misinformation' as: A. Digital Content— often legal— that is verifiably false or misleading or deceptive; B.is propagated amongst users of digital platforms via Inauthentic Behaviours; and C. the dissemination of which is reasonably likely— but may not be clearly intended— to cause Harm Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. To the department of climate change: are you familiar with the report A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate from the Trump administration—the EPA, actually. Mr Johnston : We are not, no. Senator ROBERTS: Trump released it on 23 July 2025. On 12 February President Trump said: In 2009, Barack Hussein Obama, his EPA designated fossil fuels such as oil, gas and other things that actually make factories rock and roll … as a threat to health and human welfare … Then he went on to say: This determination had no basis, in fact … it had no basis in law. Are you familiar with that? Mr Mackay : Just as a general point, could I say it's difficult for us to comment on articles that we don't have in front of us. Colleagues may wish to comment, but, as a general principle, that is very challenging for us. Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let's go to the climate narrative. What do you understand to be the climate narrative? What's the basic premise on which your policies are based? Mr Johnston : Are you able to provide some more context for the question? Senator ROBERTS: Sure. How about I give you a definition of the core climate narrative or core climate claim. Those advocating a need for human action on climate claim that carbon dioxide from human activity—use of hydrocarbon fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and farming animals for food—is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which they claim will raise temperatures and cause catastrophic warming in some distant, unspecified future. Is that accurate? Is that the basis of your work? Mr Johnston : Well, I wouldn't agree with the entirety of the sentence, but I can refer you to the IPCC Sixth assessment report, which concluded: It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Senator ROBERTS: That's from the UN IPCC? Mr Johnston : Yes. It's the IPCC Sixth assessment report. That's correct. Senator ROBERTS: Now the energy narrative, which you're implementing—let me check that one. 'The energy narrative has evolved as the politics changes, yet it is essentially that transition to solar and wind electricity generation is essential to save the planet through implementing net zero policy and will result in lower electricity prices and more jobs.' Is that accurate? Mr Johnston : We might refer to our energy colleagues online for that. Ms Wiltshire : Sorry—where is that quoted from? Senator ROBERTS: From my submission to this inquiry. I'm just asking you if that's an accurate description of the energy narrative. Ms Wiltshire : I think that's a matter for the government. I can't really comment on that. Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing due to human carbon dioxide or human activity, one needs scientific proof; would you agree, Mr Johnston? Mr Johnston : Yes, and I would add that the IPCC Sixth assessment report found that it was unequivocal that it was the case. Senator ROBERTS: So you agree that scientific proof is needed. Mr Johnston : And obtained, yes. Senator ROBERTS: Where, specifically, in the IPCC Sixth assessment report? Scientific proof involves presenting empirical scientific data, hard numbers and observations within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect. Where is it in the UN IPCC document? Ms Pentony : The way the IPCC operates is that it brings together scientists from around the world, who synthesise the latest evidence, including empirical studies, about climate changing. That statement is based on an assessment of all of the studies of climate change globally. Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that no-one has checked the actual comments, the data or the empirical scientific evidence within the IPCC? Ms Pentony : I'm saying that the role of the IPCC is to look across scientific evidence around the world and identify what that tells us about climate change and the state of climate change. That statement by the IPCC is a summary of an extremely detailed report that works through exactly the question you're asking: what empirical studies tell us, what the data tells us, about climate change. Senator ROBERTS: You're saying that, without checking, you know there's empirical scientific data in there, within logical scientific points, that prove cause and effect, and, therefore, we should do something about human carbon dioxide. Is that correct? Ms Pentony : I'm saying that that is the process of the IPCC. CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could I draw you to the terms of reference and ask where you're going with this. Are you suggesting the IPCC is spreading misinformation and therefore we're using the wrong scientific sources? Could you get to the point? Senator ROBERTS: I thought it would be pretty obvious. CHAIR: To you, it is. It's not to anyone else. Senator ROBERTS: We're embarking on a drive over a cliff in this country with our transition, which is really a drive over a cliff. President Trump has said it's a scam. He's got good scientific evidence, hard scientific evidence, proving that. I want to know who's right. We need to say what the base case is, then we can assess whether or not other statements are misinformation and disinformation. Without a baseline, there's no misinformation or disinformation. What's the baseline—Trump or you guys? Ms Pentony : Senator, I think it's fair to say— CHAIR: I hope it's you guys! Ms Pentony : that we— Senator ROBERTS: I notice you used the term 'hope'. CHAIR: I want to sleep tonight and protect my family, so I really hope it's you guys. Ms Pentony : The advice that we provide to government draws heavily on the IPCC. We see that as an authoritative source of advice on climate change. Senator ROBERTS: If you're satisfied—and you are—that the scientific proof is there, the next step is to go to a policy basis. Would that be correct? You have a basis for policy to do something about the scientific— Mr Johnston : I think, in the general sense, that sounds reasonable. Senator ROBERTS: I'm not plotting any nasty gotchas here. If the scientific proof says that we need to do something about human carbon dioxide, then we need to get the basis for a policy that says, 'Here's how we're going to cut human carbon dioxide.' Mr Johnston : That is correct. It's also very important that we are aware of the impacts of climate change. And the role of government, to keep people safe and to keep the country prosperous, means that we also need to understand, prepare and take adaptation action to make sure that we keep communities safe and the country prosperous. Senator ROBERTS: Great. You're getting to a cost-benefit analysis, by the sound of it, which is where I want to go after this question. To set a policy to cut human carbon dioxide, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural events, storm frequency et cetera, per unit of human carbon dioxide, don't we? In other words: per unit of human carbon dioxide, what is the impact on climate? That's what you need for a policy basis. Mr Johnston : In terms of global emissions, we're really talking in units like gigatons rather than at a ton or per-unit basis. We're talking very large numbers of emissions. Senator ROBERTS: That's fine. I'm not talking about per molecule of carbon dioxide. I'm talking about whatever unit you want to tell me. Per gigaton of carbon dioxide—that'll do—from human production, what is the impact on those natural climate factors, like temperature and rainfall? What is it? Mr Johnston : I don't know that we've— CHAIR: Could I ask again where you are going with this, Senator Roberts. We've got terms of reference that we've been sticking to. This is not an opportunity for you to prosecute your climate denial to the department. Can you bring it back to decision-making and misinformation and disinformation. Senator ROBERTS: I thought I'd done that. I thought you could extrapolate from climate to energy. CHAIR: I can't extrapolate anything from what you're saying. Senator ROBERTS: The terms of reference are about the impact of information integrity on climate and energy. We've got to have a baseline. You've told me what your baseline is for climate science, which is the IPCC. Now you're going to tell me your baseline for energy policy. CHAIR: Correct me if I'm wrong. Your baseline is President Trump. Senator ROBERTS: No. I'm asking you. CHAIR: That's what you said earlier! Senator ROBERTS: I've got my baseline. I don't need Trump. I've got my baseline. So what is your baseline for the policy's basis. Mr Johnston : Sorry, are you talking about energy policy? Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Johnston : I thought you were talking about science based questions. Maybe if you could just— Senator ROBERTS: That's what I said. Now that we've got the science from the IPCC, if we rely on that, let's move onto energy. I want to know the specific effect of human carbon dioxide in terms of climate. Mr Johnston : I'm not sure how that relates to energy policy. Senator ROBERTS: Before you can set a policy to save the world from human carbon dioxide production, you need to know the impact of human carbon dioxide production on the various climate factors. Then you put in place a cost benefit analysis to look at the various options—solar, wind, hydrogen, batteries. You do a comparison and come up with the most cost effective or most reliable. That's what I want to know. What is your policy basis? How many gigatonnes of carbon dioxide will you save, what will be the impact on the temperature in Australia, what will be the cost and what will be the cost if we don't do it? That's what I want to know. It's really simple; it's basic. Without that, we can't step forward. CHAIR: Let Mr Johnston answer if he wants to. Mr Johnston : I'll answer the end part of that, in terms of the cost of inaction. The Australia's national climate risk assessment report, which was published last year, undertook an assessment of risks in Australia under 1.5 degrees, two degrees and three degrees of average global warming, and it found that in the coming decades, Australia is expected to see ongoing climate changes, including more severe and extreme heatwaves, with the number of heatwave days projected to increase and with the greatest increase in the northern parts of Australia. There's very high confidence about that. The frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves have increased in Australia since 1910, with an acceleration noticeable since the 1950s and with particularly high rates of intensification in the 2000s. We currently experience about four severe or extreme nationally averaged heatwave days per year. At 1.5 degrees of global warming, we're projected to experience an additional two days of severe or extreme heatwave days per year. At two degrees of global warming, we're projected to experience more than double the number of severe or extreme heatwave days per year, which would be an additional five. And, at three degrees of global warming, a quadrupling of the current number of heatwave days requiring public warnings and actions is projected. We also expect to see more frequent and severe weather events, such as extreme rainfall events and bushfires; potentially fewer tropical cyclones overall but with greater intensity and variability; and higher natural disaster risk from extreme weather, including compound events where multiple hazards occur together. Senator ROBERTS: You've used the word 'projected', not 'forecast', which is a very sloppy underlying level. It's not valid. The other thing I would say to you is that we know for a fact that temperatures and heatwaves were hotter, longer and more frequent during the 1880s and 1890s. But what you've just told me is that you've got no basis for policy, because you cannot tell me the impact of cutting two gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from human activity. CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you're verballing the witness. That's not what Mr Johnston said. Senator ROBERTS: I asked him for the basis of policy. He hasn't been able to give it to me. CHAIR: No; you need to be fair. Mr Johnston : Perhaps I could refer you to the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees, which I believe was published in 2019. That set out the impacts of a 1.5 degree global warming and a two degree global warming. The difference between those two scenarios represents, if you like, the avoided damage from holding global temperatures at 1.5 degrees versus two degrees. That, perhaps, would be a very good comprehensive assessment of the global levels of risk at those different temperatures and the benefits of holding temperatures to 1.5. Senator ROBERTS: Mr Johnston, you cannot give me what I asked for, which is the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on climate—whether it can be measured in gigatonnes. That was your suggestion. As a result of that, you cannot do a cost benefit analysis on the various options, whether they be solar, wind, batteries or pumped hydro. So how the hell do you decide policy and how the hell do you track progress? Because if you haven't got that specific effect, you cannot track progress. So how the hell do we know that the $1.9 trillion estimated cost for this drive over a cliff is going to produce anything? Mr Johnston : I think we're talking about slightly different things. We are talking about the individual project level, conducting a cost-benefit analysis—some of my energy or mitigation colleagues may wish to comment—rather than at a global scale. CHAIR: I am going to rotate the call. This year the World Economic Forum changed its primary risk to humanity. The previous two years it was disinformation and misinformation, and the biggest long-term risk was that coupled with climate change. I think this year disinformation and misinformation is the second-biggest risk facing humanity. The United Nations has told us that one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, stopping global climate policy is disinformation and misinformation. I'm interested in whether the government is considering a national plan to deal with this. There are all sorts of threads we've discussed today around how to do that, but it is whole of government; it's comprehensive and it covers so many different things. It's incredibly complex and there are some wicked problems that need to be solved in it. Is the government considering a plan to deal with this? Ms de Hosson : In terms of the government's role, one of the things we're focused on is ensuring that we have available for the public, in a way that is accessible and meaningful to them, information about the climate, about the risks and the impacts we face, and about what the energy transition means. It's an important role for the government and something we continue to try and do better on. In terms of a holistic national plan, my understanding is that that's not under consideration at the moment. But there is significant work underway in terms of community engagement around the energy transition, which my colleagues online could talk to, if useful. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Yes—maybe just tell us a little bit about that. What sort of work are you doing in community engagement, particularly with the states and territories? Ms Cormac : We have a broad range of considered work underway. You would be aware that in 2023 the then Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner undertook a review, the Community Engagement Review, which is an important piece of advice to the Commonwealth and state and territory governments on the additional action we should all be taking to build social licence specific to the renewable energy transition. The review highlighted the need to raise the standard of community engagement, in particular by renewable energy developers. It also provided all governments a set of clear priority actions to seek to build on the work already being implemented at all levels of government to strengthen engagement with those affected by renewable energy infrastructure. Energy and climate ministers considered that review and announced their full response to the nine recommendations in their meeting of 24 July, and that implementation has been underway since. One of the key recommendations of that review for the Commonwealth government was the introduction of a national developer rating scheme. The purpose of this, outlined in the review report, was that it needed to support uplifting capability and building trust in the renewable energy sector. The first recommendation highlighted the need to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced independent body to design, develop and implement that developer rating scheme. That appointment has been undertaken; there was an open tender process on 13 August last year, and the department appointed Equifax Australasia Credit Ratings Pty Ltd to design, build and operate that developer rating scheme along with a public register that will be free and open to the community, for them to see how projects and businesses are being rated under that scorecard and whether they've met what we consider to be minimum standards. The scheme commenced operation as a pilot on 15 August last year, admittedly after the appointment of Equifax, and the department has been in consultation over more than 12 months now with an industry panel, a landholder, a local government lived experience panel, industry associations and bodies, and also state and territory government representatives on the scheme design to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Importantly, that includes an industry testing panel of renewable energy businesses who responded to a EOI process in 2025. There have been about 60 companies that have registered their interest and have also been working with us on testing that scheme. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: So this is a voluntary scheme? It's not mandatory for the proponents—is that right? Ms Cormac : Yes, it will be a voluntary scheme, it will be a voluntary user pays scheme, and we're hoping it will be launched shortly. We're working on finalising the methodology and design of that scheme right now. We got a lot of stakeholder feedback at the end of last year, so we're currently working through it with Equifax to finalise the scheme and launch it to the public. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: So for those Australians who are watching, particularly in regional communities or coastal communities, can they now jump online and look up proponents and look at their ratings? Is this a publicly available site that's now open to the public? Ms Cormac : Not yet. The intention is that it will be free and publicly available for all those people in regional communities, as you have outlined, to access once it has launched. We're just finalising the final design at the moment so that we can launch it—hopefully very soon. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Great. Thank you. CHAIR: I have a couple of follow-up questions on that. We put a question on notice to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water with reference to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's community engagement review, which was conducted in 2023. We haven't received that response yet. I would just remind the department to follow that up please. I'm interested in how that sits with what you've just described. Obviously, the commissioner plays quite an important role, and we've had evidence from the commissioner, Tony Mahar, about some of the issues they're facing. Ms Cormac : Let me start by apologising that you haven't received our response, Senator. We will definitely follow-up to make sure you get that swiftly. There is a strong linkage with the broader work of the community engagement review response that is being coordinated through all states and territories and the Commonwealth, and also Tony Mahar in his role as the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. As part of the broader work that the department has been undertaking to support implementation of that review, one of the actions that was taken, and the funding provided, was to enhance the office of the AEIC. That meant that in 2024 the AEIC transitioned to be a non-statutory ministerial appointment. Its independence was enhanced and the ability to address any renewables information was also enhanced—and support First Nations communities, which is very important as well. That office got $9.2 million over seven years to support that, and it now has ongoing funding. Tony Mahar, in his role as the AEIC, is part of our stakeholder reference committee that is helping us finalise the design of the developer rating scheme. He is involved in that process. The department also works with the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner on an annual workplan of activity that he independently undertakes. CHAIR: One pretty consistent recommendation we've had from numerous submissions is for the funding or the provision of information hubs, community hubs, around renewable energy, be they physical shopfronts, virtual or even embedded in local government. I think that was a recommendation that the Municipal Association of Victoria, for example, made—that is, the federal government works more closely with local government not just on the provision of information during an environmental impact statement process that a developer might be going through but also helping pre-bunk some of the myths and misinformation that we've seen take hold very quickly. Is that covered by what you just mentioned? Is there anything afoot in regard to that? Ms Cormac : We are actively considering ways in which we can provide clear and factual information, including at that local community level, and working through and with those existing local community organisations as a way to support those activities. I don't have anything particular that I can provide you with an update on today, as some of that is subject to consideration of government, but we are certainly working through that. One of the key recommendations of the community engagement review was around undertaking research to understand what the gaps in that information are, including at a local and regional level. That is a joint piece of research that we've worked together with states and territories on. That's out with states and territories at the moment for their advice and information on those findings so that we can work together on what those local level information support services may look like, noting that the states and territories do have existing programs and work underway in this space as well. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Mr Hyles, you mentioned earlier, when I asked you about disinformation, that you'd obtained some metrics in the aftermath of the Bondi attack. I might be misquoting; I don't know. Would you be able to provide those metrics to the committee on notice? It doesn't seem to be in the public domain, and I'm not sure why. Mr Hyles : We'd have to check into that because it might have been commercially sensitive information or otherwise sensitive information that was provided. Mr Mackay : We'll take the question on notice. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Sure. I don't know why raw data would be commercially sensitive. Meta makes money from us, not the other way around. Mr Mackay : We've taken it on notice. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: That would be great. On the topic of community engagement, the developer rating scheme, which came from the community engagement review, sounds like best practice to me. It's been adopted widely. How is that kind of best practice then diffused through other departments? Are you using some of the principles in that to disseminate it through this information resilience taskforce, for example? Ms Cormac : I'm happy to speak quickly to how we're using the work and the methodology that we're finalising for the developer rating scheme to support work across states and territories in terms of their schemes. We hope that the methodology and the scorecard will be a useful basis for further consideration of other best practice approaches. We haven't disseminated the final approach yet, because we're still finalising that, but it's certainly our intention to then work across the Commonwealth and across other states and territories collaboratively to look at how that could be further used to embed and support best practice. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Thank you. CHAIR: In relation to renewable energy projects, we received evidence on the Narrabri community battery project. In fact, we've received evidence that more than one approval for renewable projects have been cancelled as a direct result of unchecked climate and energy misinformation. The evidence we received was that, obviously, social media, like Facebook—I think the word was that they are 'a castle of propagandised misinformation'. That was Sally Hunter, the founder of Geni.Energy, who gave us that information in our inquiry. Claims that the battery was a fire risk and would shut down the town for days made their way to local councillors who ended up voting against this. The media has obviously paid some attention to this. How do we get information to people from a trusted source? Clearly, they sometimes have issues with government providing information and trust issues with developers. You've talked about developer ratings, but has there been any consideration of using other methods to get information into communities from more trusted sources? Ms Cormac : Yes. The consideration includes, quite clearly, the role of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner and other avenues as well through our state and territory colleagues. The NZEA has a role here around providing factual, clear information directly to the communities within which they work. I haven't got any of my colleagues here that are working specifically on the Community Batteries for Household Solar program. I did used to support this work, but we'd need to take on notice what was exactly provided to Sally Hunter and her team to support, in this instance, if it was so provided. CHAIR: If you could, do that. That's just that's one example. Obviously, we've heard others. Another question I've got for you is on violence in communities resulting from climate and energy misinformation and disinformation. Tony Mahar obviously provided some evidence to kick things off. There were harrowing personal accounts of bullying, intimidation, death threats, vandalism and families being split to pieces. It's a complicated area. But does the department accept and acknowledge that one of the real-world impacts of disinformation and misinformation is threats of violence or violence in communities? Ms Cormac : We have seen the comments and also the media stories around some of the impacts that this is happening having in the community. We are actively trying to understand the level of community understanding and also what we can do to address those kinds of occurrences. That's probably all I can say. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Just to follow on, we also had testimony that is worth you listening to from an 18-year-old farmer's daughter from Western Victoria. It was absolutely harrowing. This child should never have been targeted the way she was just because her father was interested in installing a wind farm on his property. Ms Cormac : Yes. CHAIR: You may be fairly limited in your approaches, but obviously it's something we'd really like to hear about. I would like to recognise that some politicians have got a lot to answer for in this regard as well in terms of whipping up fear and hysteria around renewable energy projects. With the commissioner, does the infrastructure department accept that we're having to roll out a lot of transmission around the country and that this is going to be increasingly a bigger issue? Mr Mackay : That's a question for DCCEEW rather than us. CHAIR: Don't you— Mr Mackay : Not energy infrastructure. We do land transport infrastructure. CHAIR: Just transport? Okay. Someone made the comparison to me the other day that we don't seem to get much opposition when we want to build a massive bridge or a new highway—we do get some. But do you have to deal with similar issues around transport infrastructure to what we're seeing in energy infrastructure? Or is that— Mr Mackay : That's a different part of the department to us. We couldn't comment. CHAIR: Okay. Interesting. Do you have any other questions? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I have one question on algorithmic manipulation by the social media platforms. Do you think information from independent third-party fact checkers should be boosted by these platforms? Mr Mackay : I think that's asking us for an opinion, which we couldn't give. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Is it something that you're considering in your deliberations around digital duty of care, given how important it is to have independent, verifiable information online and given that it will certainly have impact on the national news media strategy? Mr Mackay : I'll see if Ms Vandenbroek wants to add anything to what we've said earlier. Ms Vandenbroek : No, and we're looking at a broad range of factors under the duty of care, as we've said. So we're considering a lot. We're consulting. We're hearing from people what they would like covered. We're looking at the UK and EU model, as Mr Hyles said. So there are a lot of factors that we're looking at. Mr Hyles : I guess it's important to note also that it's not homogenous in terms of all the different kinds of actors and services that provide different forms of social media. They approach the management and oversight of their platforms in a variety of different ways. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Yes. But we only have one third-party fact checker in Australia, which is AAP, used by Meta and TikTok, I believe. Ms Lopez : The ABC and the SBS do also have their own fact-checking services as well. There's SBS Examines and ABC NEWS Verify, which both provide in-depth reporting and analysis to combat mis- and disinformation circulating through communities. So there is also the national broadcasters' services as well. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Are there any countries—particularly in the EU, because they seem to be leading on a lot of this reform and regulation of big tech—that are looking at mandating or regulating that the big tech platforms actually boost this kind of fact-checking content? Ms Vandenbroek : We wouldn't be aware of that. We wouldn't be aware of what they're considering in terms of their future policy or regulatory directions, unless it was in the public domain. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: But you are having discussions with the European Union? Ms Vandenbroek : We're talking to them about their current model, which they've already implemented— Mr Mackay : That's right. Ms Vandenbroek : for duty of care, not what they might be doing in the future. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: So, currently, they're not looking at mandating— Ms Vandenbroek : I'm not saying they're not; I'm saying that I don't know whether they are or they aren't. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Okay. Maybe take it on notice and— Ms Vandenbroek : We don't have that information. Mr Mackay : I think it's not a question we could take on notice. We don't have the information. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: You don't know? Have you asked them? Ms Vandenbroek : We talk to them about what they're currently doing and the lessons that they've learnt. We don't ask them for information around what they might be looking at for the future, unless it's in the public domain already. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I just think that our national news media strategy is going to be undermined unless we actually do something about uplifting the verifiable, independent content online. That's where Australians are—that's where they're consuming their information—and I don't know how they're going to lift their own media literacy under an avalanche of other content unless that stuff is boosted by the platforms. Mr Hyles : Obviously it's an issue for them, in terms of misinformation and information integrity, but, as we wouldn't share cabinet deliberations with them, they don't share with us what they're planning or future advice that they would provide to the European Commission. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: It's something to think about. Ms Lopez : In terms of the media literacy strategy, that's also about boosting Australians' competency—not just the impact on or regulation of the platforms but also Australians' ability to distil the information that they're seeing. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Thank you. CHAIR: Senator Roberts, for five minutes. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I've got a few questions that will end up in a misinformation and disinformation question about the contents. Are you aware of Canadian oil magnate Maurice Strong, who died in 2015? I'm going to the source of Ms Pentony's statements on the IPCC. Ms Pentony : I am not personally aware of that person. Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that he formed the United Nations Environment Program in 1972 and was appointed its head at the end of 1972? Ms Pentony : I am not aware of that, no. Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that Maurice Strong is a fabricator of claims on global warming, starting in 1980, and that he formed the UN IPCC in 1988? Ms Pentony : I am not aware of that claim, no. Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that he was a co-founder and a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange to trade carbon dioxide credits to make himself a billionaire and earn revenue for the United Nations? Ms Pentony : I'm not aware of that claim. Senator ROBERTS: Not many people are, so don't feel disturbed about it. Are you aware that he was wanted for crimes against the UN in terms of the oil-for-food scandal and the crimes to do with water trading in the western United States, and that he left the United States and exiled himself in China? Ms Pentony : I am not aware of that claim. Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that UNEP, the United Nations Environment Program, which he fabricated in 1972, fabricated the science on DDT, which led to the ban of DDT in 1976? Ms Pentony : No. Senator ROBERTS: And that there were 40 million to 50 million deaths until the UN resumed the use of DDT in 2006? Ms Pentony : No, Senator. Senator ROBERTS: Would any of that be misinformation or disinformation from Maurice Strong? Ms Pentony : I don't have the information that you're putting to me. I couldn't make an assessment of its— Senator ROBERTS: Alright, thank you. CHAIR: I have one small question. With the last parliament and the 'mis- dis-' bill, if we could call it that, I understand the first draft included reporting on harms and take-downs and those kind of things in the environment but the revised draft had environment taken out of it. Is that correct? Can you explain why? We're obviously interested in the threshold of harm that you might put into regulation or legislation. Why was the environment taken out of that bill? Mr Hyles : It's important to note that the threshold of harm in the bill that was presented to parliament was serious harm, so it's a very high threshold. Through the course of the consultation process on the draft bill and in other discussions with other key stakeholders, we considered Australia's international treaty obligations and alignment with those, and so the focus was put on the other things that were presented to parliament in the final bill. CHAIR: We've just talked about the World Economic Forum talking about the biggest long-term harm to humanity being the climate crisis. We've seen around extreme weather events quite significant harm, including online harm done to people who've lost their homes. They're being told it's Jewish space lasers and a whole range of different— Senator Roberts interjecting— CHAIR: Don't laugh. There are some politicians in the US who've actually backed that in. This threshold question is obviously really important to the committee in terms of how we can tackle climate disinformation and misinformation. So, if you could provide any other information on that, that would be appreciated. Mr Hyles : We'll take that on notice. CHAIR: If you could, great, thank you. Senator ROBERTS: I've just got one question of the communications department. I quite often hear and I believe that the biggest purveyor of misinformation and disinformation is the government. I'm not talking about the Albanese government. I'm talking about government, state and federal. Is there any responsibility or any way of putting the rein on governments for misinformation and disinformation? Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: It's called elections, Malcolm. Mr Mackay : I think that's a very general question. We've spoken earlier this afternoon about, for example, the provisions of the DIGI code for misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms. That doesn't discriminate as to who posts material. So, in the case that a government entity posted information on a social media platform, that would be just as subject to that code as anything else. But I think that the question is so broad that it's not really one that we can answer with our policy responsibility as the communications department. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your attempt. That's good. CHAIR: We could also talk about politicians who spread disinformation and misinformation on climate, energy and infrastructure. Thank you so much for your attendance today. You've been very generous with your time. Responses to questions on notice are due two weeks after receipt. The report is due 24 March, so we don't have long. Thank you very much. Committee adjourned at 16:33