Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Herbert on a very fine contribution to this debate. There's not a single thing in what he had to say that I would disagree with. This is an appalling attack by a government that came to the last election promising openness and transparency, promising to let the sunshine in, and yet what we've seen over the past 2½ years is completely the opposite.

I've heard many of the contributions from those opposite, saying, 'This is really not much of a concern—we're dealing with misinformation and disinformation.' Let me just remind the House that it's usually those who are on the wrong side of the argument that shout 'misinformation' or 'disinformation'. It's those who are losing the argument that resort to name-calling and epithets, because they know they've lost the argument and can't win it on the facts. We've just seen that in the Queensland state election. Much as I disagree with what was done and said in many of those campaigns, and in the campaign more generally, that is the beauty of democracy: you can say things that people disagree with. That is what Western civilisation is built on. That's what our society and our culture are built on. There's a free exchange of ideas in a contested environment. Where somebody posits a proposition or says something, you have the right to say, 'I disagree with you for these reasons.' That's why we have the vibrant society and democracy that we have today.

Sadly, there are those in this place, on the government benches at the moment, who want to stifle that debate. The reality of the situation is that, in many cases, their ideological position in the world doesn't accord with the facts and they don't know how to deal with that, because they're marooned on this rock of ideology. Heaven forbid that the facts would ever get in the way! Let me give you an example that I came across today.

It has been revealed that the bureau of meteorology in the United Kingdom stands accused, after a freedom-of-information request, of manufacturing temperature records for over 103 locations where they have no temperature-monitoring equipment. At various times in this place we have had a discussion about the homogenisation policies that our Bureau of Meteorology uses, and the veracity or otherwise of those. Anybody on this side that stands up and questions those is accused of misinformation, disinformation, climate denial or whatever the case may be, but the reality is that those on the left who have a certain view of the world don't want to actually deal with the facts. We've seen the situation of Professor Peter Ridd at James Cook University and what he had to go through by standing on his principles and values and stating the facts. That finished up in a court case. It's not that this legislation is actually required, because those on the left are already trying to muzzle those that disagree with them and seek to point out the reality of what's going on. Those on the Left and those on the government benches do not like that. They take exception to it.

We've recently seen the COVID report handed down. During COVID, there was much commentary on various platforms and social media platforms that I disagreed with, and I think the COVID report revealed that much of that was incorrect. Yet there was also much that was commentated on during that period that was correct, and the COVID report bore that out, yet the people that said that during that period were vilified and treated as pariahs.

We now have a situation in this House where we're discussing a piece of legislation that will only reinforce the ability of those on the Left and those currently in government to further muzzle debate and to use the full apparatus of state to achieve that. That is not what this country was built on, as the member for Herbert quite rightly pointed out. I too have had many emails to my office on this issue. I'll say that zero are in support of it, because Australians out there recognise the danger of this piece of legislation. It's an appalling and chilling attack on our free speech and our ability to have a sensible public debate on contested issues. Just as we have a contested debate on a piece of legislation before this House, we should also be able to have a contested debate out in the public sphere, whether it be on social media, in a pub, in a club or on an online debating forum—whatever the case may be.

Where I will draw the line is—as I'm sure Deputy Speaker Buchholz saw during the recent state election campaign—when people start to attack other people personally and vilify them. What I'm finding in the public debate is not issues with free speech or the contesting of ideas; what I find increasingly troubling in the debate in the public sphere is the willingness, particularly of the Left of politics, to resort to demonising and seeking to tear down and destroy one's character when they've lost an argument or they don't believe they can win the argument.

I got taught in high-school debating that, if you start attacking your opponents personally, you can sit down because you've lost the argument. But this bill before us will achieve exactly what I'm concerned about—that is, it will result in the diminishing of the quality of public debate because the people in our community who have a different view that is not approved by the government or some other government body of the day can and, I suspect, will be silenced. As I've outlined in a number of examples, we've seen that already in evidence, even without the provision of this legislation.

I find it interesting that, under this bill, academics, scientists and artists are exempted from the bill but not everyday Australians. Why not? Why do we need this legislation? Give me an example of why we need this legislation. There is no example of why we need this legislation. It is only coming into place because the government wants to further control and be involved in people's lives. I'll say to anybody listening to this debate this evening, be very afraid when the government says: 'We're here to help. We'll make your lives better.'

I heard the member for Newcastle speaking earlier, and her remarks on this bill. She was talking about her committee and the work she's doing on that committee and made a reference to the issue of abuse et cetera online of children. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, you would have seen the sad case of a young lady in Queensland who took her own life earlier this week as a result of bullying and vilification. And yet what we see is this government introducing this bill, which seeks to muzzle everyday Australians, but they refuse to do anything about age verification or dealing with any of the issues of online bullying. And don't for a minute pretend that this bill is about online bullying. It's not. That is a completely different issue that's not covered by this bill.

If the government is genuinely concerned about dealing with issues of online bullying and age verification for children online so that they're not being exposed to harmful material—on this side of the House we've already put up a proposition for that, which the government is yet to respond to or to do anything with—then go ahead and do it. That is far more important and far more relevant today than this bill, which seeks to muzzle free speech and reduce the rights and the freedoms that we have fought for so hard in this country over the past couple of hundred years.

And it's not only in this country, it's across the world. Western culture, as I said earlier, is built on the notion of free speech and contested ideas. The idea that a communications minister, a minister of state, can personally order a misinformation investigation or misinformation hearings on the terms of their choosing is an extraordinary power. I think I'd be in safe territory in saying that is an unprecedented power for a minister of state to have directly given to them, and that's exactly what this bill proposes. So if somebody out in the public says something that the minister disagrees with or the government of the day disagrees with, they can put that person through the ringer through a misinformation inquiry or hearing. Honestly, the Gestapo would be proud of that. Fidel Castro's Cuba would be proud of that. There are many other countries that have an enormously poor track record in this space of human rights and basic human freedoms who would be proud of what this bill is potentially going to do.

The breadth of the definitions in this bill are extraordinary. The term 'serious harm' is being applied to elections and referendums. What would have happened if this bill were in place during the Voice referendum? Would you have heard both sides of the argument? I suspect not, because it was frequently a cry from the rooftop from those opposite and from the proponents of the Voice that those who were prosecuting the argument for the 'no' vote were spreading misinformation and disinformation. And yet the Australian people spoke with their voice, and roughly 60 per cent of the Australian people voted no—one of the highest votes in a referendum in the history of this country.

This bill is an absolute disgrace, an abject failure of governance and a threat to the democracy that this country is proud of and has been built on for the last 120-odd years. We should oppose this with every fibre of our being, because it will not make this country a better place; it will make it a worse place, not just for this current generation but for the generations to come. I oppose this bill with every fibre of my being.

See this speech in context