“We do not have takedown powers:” Regulator powerless against the flood of energy misinformation

Public hearings for the Senate Committee on Information Integrity in Climate Change and Energy resume this week, as the battle over truth in the energy transition intensifies.

Chaired by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, the inquiry is investigating how misinformation and disinformation are shaping Australia’s response to the climate crisis and the shift to renewable energy.

The committee has already received 237 submissions and heard from scientists, bureaucrats and digital experts. Now, as hearings resume, the cross-party panel returns to the central question: how to protect democracy — and the clean energy transition — in an age of weaponised misinformation.

The appearance of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) at the last hearings underscored just how powerless the federal regulator is in the face of coordinated misinformation campaigns amplified by algorithms.

Currently, ACMA’s role in monitoring digital platforms is limited, as these platforms are only bound by a voluntary code of practice.

During a pointed exchange between Senator David Pocock and ACMA staff, the weakness of Australia’s safeguards was laid bare when the regulator admitted its framework was built for a broadcast era now overwhelmed by digital falsehoods.

Senator David Pocock: “So you have no powers to enforce removal of content that is demonstrably false? You cannot compel a social media platform to take down climate-related misinformation?”

ACMA representative: “That is correct. Our powers relate to broadcasting services and certain content codes; we do not currently have statutory takedown powers over user-generated content on social media platforms.”

“It seems extraordinary,” said Senator Pocock. “You say you’re charged with ‘information integrity’ in this inquiry, yet you are powerless to act when falsehoods about the energy transition circulate freely online. That gap is part of the problem we’re here to address.”

Several submissions and witnesses to the Senate inquiry have highlighted the failure of Australia’s current legal framework to keep pace with the problem.

Dr Matthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at Queensland University of Technology, argues in his submission that the government must urgently tackle astroturfing — when corporations, political groups, or lobbyists disguise their involvement in a campaign to create the illusion of grassroots public support.

“Astroturfing has been a blight on public policy debate in Australian politics, and internationally,” writes Rimmer, who calls for new laws to combat it, alongside better use of existing legal tools.

Late last year, the Albanese Government introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which would have given ACMA stronger powers over digital platforms, though not the ability to remove individual content or user accounts.

But the legislation was later abandoned amid concerns it could stifle legitimate speech. Rimmer argues any future reforms must include measures to expose and penalise astroturfing.

He also calls for deeper political integrity reforms to unmask hidden influence. “There needs to be greater transparency in respect of the operations of think-tanks in Australia,” writes Rimmer, along with reforms to lobbying regulations.

Rimmer notes that federal truth in political advertising laws would help counter political and astroturfing-related misinformation.

South Australia and the ACT have already enacted such laws, and Independent MP Zali Steggall introduced a private member’s bill to create a national equivalent. Her proposal would have empowered the Australian Electoral Commissioner to investigate breaches, order retractions and pursue complaints in court — but it failed to pass Parliament.

“Federal Truth in Political Advertising Laws would help address political forms and variants of astroturfing,” writes Rimmer.

Existing laws, he adds, could also be leveraged to tackle misinformation and disinformation. “Australian Consumer Law could address astroturfing by corporations – particularly where there were false and misleading representations. Intellectual property law and defamation may also be relevant to certain cases of astroturfing.”

Corporations law could also come into play, Rimmer suggests, particularly where financial products are involved. “Better corporate disclosure rules would also provide greater transparency.”

If you wish to support independent media, and accurate information, please consider making a one off donation or becoming a regular supporter of Renew Economy. Please click here. Your support is invaluable.