This discussion paper outlines the state of the information environment in Australia in comparison to other countries, focusing on the perceived threat of misinformation and disinformation on public information quality. It examines the scale, nature, spread and effects of misinformation in democracies. 

The paper draws on recent Australian case studies including the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum and political campaigns like ‘Mediscare’ and the ‘Death Tax’. The three studies identify the role that political elites and both mainstream and social media play in spreading and giving salience to misinformation that has the potential to harm public perceptions of election integrity. 

Within the context of existing policy such as Australia’s voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation and 2023 draft exposure bill extending the functions and sanctions of the Code, the paper identifies key lessons to shape a data-driven research agenda aimed at enhancing democratic resilience and social cohesion in Australia. 

The paper is largely focused on domestic threats of misinformation and disinformation rather than foreign influence operators. 

Recommendations

1. Misinformation monitoring: Establish regular monitoring of misinformation in the Australian public information environments, including social listening tools to track trending false narratives across different platforms and media, which are essential for timely response. 
2. Targeted survey: Implement an annual, representative survey on misinformation prevalence, key topics, and population segmentation, as well as media trust across different platforms, co-designed by government and academic bodies. 
3. Data access: Enable academic research to access and analyse social media and proprietary data, such as Meltwater, to understand the speed and spread of misinformation.
4. Evidence-based countermeasures: Fund rigorous experimental research on the efficacy of governmental and societal responses to misinformation, including regulation, public communication, digital and media education, inoculation, or
   identity threat reduction. 
5. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Encourage regular knowledge-sharing symposiums between researchers and policymakers, modelled on EU initiatives under the Digital Services Act.
6. Trusted flaggers program: Create a program to alert online platforms to misinformation and illegal content, similar to the European Union’s trusted flagger initiative.
7. Coordination in misinformation research and action: Invest in bodies, akin to the Institute for Research on the Information Environment or Sweden’s Psychological Defence Agency to foster synergistic research efforts and translational bridges between research and policy, and to coordinate responses to misinformation across government agencies, respectively.