Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

How do you know when there's a Liberal government in power? Amongst other things, there's no action on climate change, vulnerable people seeking asylum are demonised and tortured, inequality spirals, big business and the one per cent are given tax breaks, and there are a lot of old conservative people defending freedom of speech and the right to be a bigot. The Turnbull government has gone where no other conservative government has gone before. They're trumpeting nonstop about the inalienable right of freedom of speech, but beware, because, if you use that right to make fun of the government, you might end up in prison under this bill. This bill, if passed, would mean that, if a person:

… engages in conduct; and

(b) the conduct results in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a representation that the person:

  (i) is a Commonwealth body; or

  (ii) is acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body—

and you aren't one, that's jail for two years. The only protection given in this bill is that:

conduct does not include conduct engaged in solely—

I repeat, solely—

for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes.

In other words, if you're engaging in satire or academic research but you might have some other purpose, maybe a political purpose, you face jail time under this bill.

I have to ask the government: is this bill itself genuinely satirical? Is this a joke? If you're going to say the only people who can avoid jail time are the ones who engage in genuine satire, what is genuine satire? What's non-genuine satire? What test would one apply to determine the difference? Who will determine the difference if this bill becomes law? Will the government be creating a new body or a person to review satirical works that mention the Australian government or its representatives in order to determine whether the act has been contravened? Will the government be convening focus groups to whom they will show various satirical, academic or artistic conduct that they think might contravene the act to determine whether or not the conduct is genuine? What happens if someone is engaging in conduct not solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes? Who is defining the scope of the word 'solely'? Will someone be counting the comments in response to a particular story or video and creating a tally to determine whether or not the act has been contravened? Will the government be shutting down The Betoota Advocate? In their submission the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights ask:

… under the proposed legislative regime would each episode of Clarke and Dawe, The Chaser, The Juice Media's "Honest Government Ads"or Shaun Micallef's "Mad as Hell"need to be prefaced by explanations that the characters are not representing the federal government to avoid any risk of all concerned being jailed for up to 5 years?

You might think this is fanciful, except the government has already taken steps, before this bill has been passed, to haul people up for allegedly impersonating the Commonwealth government. Some members of this place might be aware of The Juice Media's hilarious work in their Honest Government Ads YouTube series. This series has gone viral many times. The reason it has such a wide reception is that it holds up a light to the chaos and dysfunction of our current federal government, using those dreaded weapons of satire and humour. These people have been on the receiving end of contact from a government department saying that some of the images they use potentially might confuse people and make them think they are actually speaking on the behalf of the government. I can sympathise with the government to some extent, because sometimes it is legitimately impossible to differentiate fact from fiction when this government implements policies. I can understand how the Australian public might be confused between a farce and this government. The Juice Media have made this point creatively many times in their popular videos.

Take, for example, the recent video produced by The Juice Media on the government's bungled Centrelink robo-debt fiasco. I remind you, as I read this out, that this is an organisation that has already been approached by the government to say, 'You potentially are impersonating government.' I think it's worth our looking closely at the content this bill apparently seeks to address, so that in this place, as MPs, we can exercise our due diligence and clearly comprehend the absurdity of this legislation. The Juice Media's video takes the form of a clearly mocked-up fake government ad, and the narrator, posing a Centrelink spokesperson, reads the following script to camera. I wish now, in the interests of accuracy, to quote from this satirical video for the Hansard, so that all members can cast a discerning eye over whether this material is genuinely satire or whether the producers face jail time, because that's what this bill is seeking to do: make the government the arbiter of what is satire and what isn't. Let's have some of it. I quote now from The Juice Media's video about the government's bungled Centrelink robo-debt programs:

Hello, I'm from Centrelink

Did you recently commit the crime of accessing social security?

If so, you will have received a polite letter from us over the Christmas holidays indicating that you might need to pay us a huge amount of money.

You may also receive a visit from our friendly debt-collectors.

Did you know that due to our recently introduced algorithm, at least 1 in 5 people who received our letter didn't actually owe us any money at all?

We knew this! We just thought it might be more fun to force you to prove yourself innocent. It's not like you bludgers have anything better to do.

But we're here to reassure you.

Centrelink's algorithm is not malfunctioning. It's doing just what we asked it to: sending out a clear message to poor people that this Government hates you.

Above all, it's distracting you from the actual bludgers who really know how to rort taxpayers.

That's why we're going after the most vulnerable people, like single-income mothers and people with disabilities ... rather than billionaires who stash their money in corporate tax havens; or the top third of companies in Australia that pay no tax; or ministers who blow public funds on private flights to their own weddings, parties and house-buying sprees...

If our efforts to ruin your life are causing you distress, call us on 13 24 68 and if you don't die of natural causes while waiting to speak to a real person, we'll gladly refer you to counselling. Just don't go to your local MP or the media.

Centrelink.

(Authorised by the Department of Inhumane Services and Tax-payer Rorts)

I can see how the public might be confused between this joke video which was released and this actual government, which itself has indeed been a joke with its mismanagement of so-called Centrelink debts. But such is the level of angst in this government that this organisation, Juice Media, has already been told to stop using certain logos and coats of arms because they are official Commonwealth property. So it makes us very worried that this is exactly what the government has in mind with this bill.

I will provide you with another example of such satirical material. So that the House can be properly briefed on exactly what this bill is dealing with, I offer another script from the same video, 'Honest Government Ads'. This video script was written and released in relation to the government's recent marriage equality plebiscite. The video inserts an 'H' in the word plebiscite, but not in a way that would be unparliamentary, I'm sure. Let me quote from that:

G'day I'm from the Australian Government.

Are you ready for the marriage equality Plebishite?!

A Plebishite is when we force the nation to come together and do something really plebby and shite: such as voting on whether certain members of our society deserve the same human rights as everyone else.

Cuz in Australia, WE decide who gets to have human rights (and who doesn't).

PLEBISH1TE!

We're not doing this to find out your opinion ...

We already know from actual surveys that 72% of you support marriage equality; and that this figure is even higher among young Australians (84%).

We're just doing this to please a bunch of dinosaurs from the Late Homophobic Era, who really don't want Australia to advance into the 21st century.

Which is why instead of having a vote in Parliament we're blowing tons of money on a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey.

But hey, at least we'll be teaching millennials how to use stamps and envelopes.

As well as providing a national platform to vilify and demean LGBTI Australians and their children, in the process.

PLEB1SHITE!

By making it a postal vote, we've made it as hard as possible for those in favour of marriage equality to participate.

So why not just stay home in front of the telly and tune in to The Bachelor, watching heterosexuals flaunt their exclusive right to marriage under Australian law.

We'd especially like all you young Australians to NOT register by the deadline of August 24.

Because we know how much you hate us, so the last thing we want is for you to be ready to vote in the next federal election.

Marriage Equality.

Still not a thing in Australia!

(Authorised by the Department of No Leadership & Unnecessary Harm)

I think I am beginning to understand the government's concern with satire: it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to separate fact from fiction. The government, which already has organisations like this in its sights and has already sent them threatening correspondence, is now wanting to introduce a bill that, for the first time, will put people under penalty of jail time if the satire they engage in is not genuine but somehow impersonates the Commonwealth government. No wonder this government is worried!

All jokes aside, the reality is that, if this bill is passed, it will make producing such videos and writing such material potentially punishable by a jail term. For a government that purports to care about freedom of speech, that is not very funny at all. We are forced to ask these questions and quote these videos, which in turn shows us how ridiculous this bill really is and how poorly drafted it is. Surely this is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history to enter this place.

Genuine satire, solely for 'satirical, academic or artistic purposes'—these are very vague words being used in a provision that can result in people going to jail. This from a government that pretends to care about freedom of speech and individual liberties. Will we be able to look to the courts for inspiration and guidance about what these terms mean? No, because, as Dr Giordano Nanni of The Juice Media submitted to the inquiry:

There is a dearth of case law on what 'satire' even means in Australia …

Or is defined as. So, there is not much precedent to guide us and nothing in the bill. A fundamental flaw, as Mr Jeremy Gans pointed out in a submission to the inquiry, is that it :

… criminalises reasonable misunderstandings, rather than deception, in a context where reasonable misunderstandings (about the role and reach of Australia's federal government) are absolutely commonplace (and are widely recognised as such by all informed people.)

There are valid reasons to prohibit false representations of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth bodies. Of course there should be recourse for someone who, for example, calls someone up pretending to be from the tax office demanding payment, attempts to infiltrate a government organisation using false credentials or uses a false identity to extract information. But should someone be thrown in jail because they dress up like the Prime Minister and pretend to be Prime Minister Turnbull on YouTube, because they make a satirical video that is imitating government advertising? If someone dresses up like me and stands outside my well-signposted office in Melbourne and someone passing by or online thinks they are me, are we seriously saying that they could be thrown in jail? That's how this bill reads. This bill would not be out of place in North Korea. If you make fun of the faultless wise overlord of the universe, prepare to feel the crushing weight of the state as you are dragged away and imprisoned for your cheek and insolence.

The comparison reveals the true intent of the bill. This bill is really about power. In his seminal book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky notes:

Humor is essential to a successful tactician, for the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule.

This bill is about cracking down on dissent. We are seeing the government do this elsewhere with people who dare to speak out—they are going to potentially lose their funding or their charitable status—and now they're doing it here as well to anyone who dares impersonate the government for the purpose of satire or art.

This is about avoiding criticism, avoiding scrutiny and avoiding ridicule. This bill reminds me of a petulant teenager who has had their feelings hurt and has just decided to lash out. The late great John Clarke deployed humour with devastating effect. Clarke would have impersonated countless prime ministers, ministers and public servants over the years and his marvellous critiques of the senselessness of government policy will live on forever in the Australian psyche. Under this legislation, Clarke's skill may have tripped him up. Someone who isn't political may have flicked on the television just in time to hear Bryan Dawe announce that he was interviewing the Treasurer. Of the millions of people who have watched Clarke and Dawe, there no doubt would have been some who genuinely believed John Clarke was the Treasurer. 'Throw him in jail,' says this mob. If it's not genuine satire, if it's done for a purpose that might have a political purpose, you lose your protection under this absurdly and poorly drafted bill.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that this bill would not be before us if some of the ridicule, the satire and the conduct directed at this government didn't hit as close to home as it has. To be ridiculed you have to do something ridiculous. Not only is this legislation ridiculous but the government trying to push it through is as well.

See this speech in context