By Australia's Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay
Free speech is not a luxury. It is the very foundation of a healthy democracy. It's what allows us to challenge orthodoxy, scrutinise ideas and refine public policy through open debate.
Any attempt to tackle misinformation must begin with this principle: you do not protect truth by silencing debate.
The Australian Human Rights Commission's recent submission on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy is grounded in this belief. It recognises that misinformation poses real risks - especially when it distorts public understanding, erodes trust in institutions or delays urgent action. But it also clearly warns that efforts to combat misinformation must not come at the expense of free speech.
Misinformation in the climate space is not confined to one side of the debate. It can stem from both climate denial and overly alarmist narratives, each contributing to confusion and polarisation. But simply holding differing views or questioning the prevailing orthodoxies should not be equated with spreading misinformation.
Misinformation is not an abstract concern. It has real-world implications. For example, after the deadly floods in Texas in July 2025, false claims that a cloud seeding operation had caused the disaster quickly started circulating. While these claims were immediately debunked by meteorologists, they still had serious impacts, including complicating disaster recovery efforts and leading to death threats against the company's staff.
This was not a case of people simply expressing a different opinion about climate policy. It is an example of a demonstrably false claim that had real-world consequences.
While scientific consensus should inform policy, it should never be used to shut down inquiry or critical debate. History offers numerous examples of the scientific consensus being re-evaluated based on new evidence. A famous example is Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that handwashing in hospitals could prevent unnecessary deaths. Even though his evidence was strong, other doctors ignored him for years, and lives were lost as a result. Although once overlooked, handwashing has since been recognised and adopted as an evidence-based practice to control the spread of infection. This should remind us that dissent and scrutiny are vital - even when we are told that the science is settled.
In our submission, we are not suggesting that different or contested views on climate policy should be outlawed. Firstly, the line between what is true and what is false is not always clear-cut - especially in complex and evolving areas of science and policy. Secondly, Australia needs to have robust debates about climate and energy policies. These issues are critical to our nation's future and need to be the subject of active and engaged public discussion.
What we are suggesting in our submission is that misinformation is an issue that needs to be addressed. But we recognise that this is not simple. There is no single policy response that provides a perfect answer.
Further, while the Commission recognises that regulation may be part of any response, this does not mean we are supporting a sweeping, catch-all misinformation law. Legislation is a blunt instrument and must be used sparingly. Any law would need to establish a clear harm threshold, avoid ambiguous definitions and include robust safeguards for free speech. The risk of overreach is real and must be vigorously resisted.
It also needs to recognise that once we start trying to regulate misinformation, we inevitably confront a difficult question: who decides what counts as misinformation? There are real dangers in allowing any one body - whether it be government or a social media platform - to become the sole arbiter of truth.
The Commission has previously raised concerns about poorly designed legislation. For example, we did not support last year's Misinformation Bill because it failed to sufficiently protect free speech.
Addressing misinformation requires a multi-faceted policy response that is grounded in human rights. The range of policy responses might include measures designed to improve digital literacy, supporting a competitive and independent media sector, enhancing transparency in online platforms, addressing foreign interference, and responding to the use of bots, trolls and deepfakes to manipulate public debate.
These measures are not about imposing censorship or silencing dissent. Instead, they are designed to strengthen the foundations of informed public discourse.
Tackling misinformation is essential but it must never come at the cost of the freedoms that sustain democracy. A healthy democracy depends not on uniformity of thought, but on the ability to disagree, debate and demand better.
We safeguard truth not by narrowing the space for dialogue but by defending the freedom that allows it to thrive.
