Get the latest news to your email inbox FREE!
Get the latest news to your email inbox FREE!
The world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to demonstrate how handy it can be, as well a deeply concerning contributor to the world of misinformation! As I reported back after attending the 56th Conference of Parliaments, a key issue raised across every forum and discussion was the growing spread of misinformation, which is eroding trust, weakening confidence in democratic institutions and highlighting the need for a ‘portal of truth’ to fact-check the ever-increasing volume of information being disseminated at a rate of millions of pieces of content each day. Makes one’s head spin, doesn’t it?
The Australian Communications and Media Authority recently noted that 72% of Australian digital platform users believe they encounter some form of misinformation online daily, with Facebook identified as a primary source.
With AI, whether those ‘approved’ for use by Parliamentary Services which only search internal documents, or others that search across the web, both have hidden traps and require you to cross-check their ‘advice’ the old-fashioned way to avoid being a disperser of even more misinformation!
Besides Queenslanders innocently grabbing AI generated content and dispersing as fact, or those which deliberately share AI misinformation or disinformation to erode our belief structures, there are other daily examples. Recently a newspaper (not this one!) posted that I was ‘demanding’ Noosa Council act regarding a site within the Sunshine Coast Council shire which was totally false. The reason given? An ‘editor’ had sourced the information, raising questions as to whether this was a human editor or an AI tool hallucinating ‘facts’!
Then a ‘Soapbox’ article by a recent former LNP staffer and party member on ‘what should be done’ in relation to the former Noosa North Shore Landing Ground Reserve. Some fact checking in Noosa 360 or to our office would have provided what the writer omitted – including that both governments have stated the site under National Park status can continue to be used for emergency service purposes and training. The real question is given the decision looks to have already been made to revoke the landing strip back, why the politicking? As I reported, there was no overriding majority either way from Noosa electorate residents regarding the site back in 2023, and with no suitable alternate site for the recreation clubs to relocate to as committed, why doesn’t government be transparent? The devil is in the detail, and I believe a solid majority of Noosans would not have an issue with recreational clubs continuing on the site, however, may if there is a lack of conditions and assurances that usage will not be expanded or changed. So, I continue to call on government to provide that information and will update everyone once we get some answers!
Now, forgoing a much-needed afternoon off to continue the fight against Singapore Daisy and Easter Cassia, I decided to test how accurate AI was to address the many questions regarding recent ‘agreements’ by Kabi to non-compliant houseboat owners and the confusion on the difference between sovereign citizens and indigenous sovereignty. AI came up with the following:
The concepts of sovereign citizens and Indigenous sovereignty are fundamentally different in origin, purpose and legal recognition in Australia.
Sovereign citizens are individuals or groups who claim they are independent from government authority and therefore not subject to laws such as taxation, licensing requirements or court jurisdiction. These beliefs are generally based on misinterpretations of legal principles and the mistaken view that individuals can choose whether laws apply to them. Australian courts have consistently rejected sovereign citizen arguments, finding them to have no legal basis. Regardless of such claims, individuals remain fully subject to Commonwealth and state laws.
Indigenous sovereignty, by contrast, relates to the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original inhabitants of Australia. It is grounded in the existence of Indigenous laws, governance systems and connections to land that pre-date British colonisation. Indigenous sovereignty is not concerned with avoiding legal obligations but with recognition of historical rights, self-determination and political status.
The legal recognition of Indigenous sovereignty is more complex. Australian law does not recognise Indigenous sovereignty as overriding the authority of the Commonwealth or the states. However, significant developments such as the High Court’s decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) rejected the doctrine of terra nullius and recognised native title, acknowledging that certain Indigenous rights can exist under Australian law. Those rights, however, operate within the Australian legal framework and may be limited or extinguished under legislation.
Contemporary discussions about Indigenous sovereignty often focus on recognition, treaty processes and self-determination rather than legal supremacy over existing governments. While many Indigenous advocates maintain that sovereignty was never ceded, this remains a political, historical and moral assertion rather than a principle recognised by courts as overriding statutory law.
In summary, sovereign citizen claims and Indigenous sovereignty are not comparable. Sovereign citizen arguments are legally baseless and consistently dismissed, whereas Indigenous sovereignty reflects a historically grounded claim seeking recognition and justice. However, under current Australian law, neither concept overrides Commonwealth or state authority. Sovereign citizen claims fail outright, while Indigenous sovereignty receives limited recognition within the existing legal framework but does not displace it.
So how did AI’s version compare to what we had found the old-fashioned way by emails to ministers, Department of Environment, QLD South Native Title Services and Kabi Kabi Aboriginal Corporation representatives? Basically similar, that one is legally baseless and dismissed, the other under current law does not override Commonwealth or state authority, as posted at www.sandybolton.com/noosa360 (simply search ‘native title’).
So by all means ask AI, however cross check through your own independent research with credible sources or contact our office. To end the spread of disinformation and misinformation requires our community to be alert, ask the relevant questions, and remember the old adage of ‘buyer beware’ or in this case ‘reader beware’!
Now to updates.
NEW E-MOBILITY LAWS
Following the Parliamentary Inquiry into E-Mobility Safety, new laws have now passed and will begin rolling out from 1 July 2026. While stronger action on illegal and unsafe devices has long been needed, we recognise some changes are contentious and go beyond what had been advocated for. This included the importance of targeting illegal devices and dangerous behaviour, while avoiding unnecessary impacts on riders doing the right thing. Key changes include new e-bike safety standards, explicit powers for police to seize and destroy illegal devices, random breath testing and drink-riding laws, higher penalties for offences, mandatory compliance labelling and new speed restrictions. From 31 August, riders will need to be at least 16 years old and hold a licence, with exemptions for those with disability and medical conditions who cannot access a licence, and supervised riding provisions for 12–17-year-olds. With a review scheduled in 12 months, we encourage residents to provide feedback to the transport minister via [email protected] and to copy our office via [email protected] to help inform our ongoing advocacy.
SHARK CONTROL PROGRAM UPDATE
Following a Question on Notice to the Minister for Primary Industries, government confirmed that whale-deterrent acoustic alarms will be installed on shark control equipment in Noosa ahead of this year’s migration season in an attempt to avoid further entanglements. While any steps to reduce these entanglements are welcome, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of these devices and any unintended impacts. Additional signage will also be installed to help beach users know who to call if they see an entanglement and while these measures are appreciated, it is disappointing that the framework for assessing alternative shark mitigation technologies has not yet been delivered and we continue advocating for safe, evidence-based alternatives to shark nets during whale migration periods. For more information, visit www.sandybolton.com/shark-control-program-update-june-2026/.
NOOSA QUEENSLAND DAY AWARDS
As reported, this year, more than 60 outstanding residents were recognised locally, representing almost 700 years of combined community service. An unfortunate omission from a media release was Paul O’Hare from Noosa and District Landcare, who has dedicated more than 25 years of service to our community. Thank you, Paul, super congratulations and apologies again! To learn more about this year’s recipients and their incredible contributions to the Noosa electorate, visit www.sandybolton.com/queensland-day-awards-2026-recipients/
And Finally…
Until next month, enjoy any days of warmth, and if you need any assistance, please call us on 53193100 or email [email protected]. Remember to visit Noosa 360, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn for other updates, as well for our monthly polls, and thank all who respond to these as this is invaluable!
Get an all ACCESS PASS to the News and your Digital Edition with an online subscription
© 2026 Star News Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved
Leave a Reply