James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I join the consistent calls of my colleagues in comprehensively condemning and rejecting this legislation that the government has put forward, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. Obviously, I indicate that I don't support the bill being read a second time. This might be the worst piece of legislation that I've ever made a contribution on in my six years as a member of this chamber, and that's saying something, because this government has had some other shockers. But never have we had one that is really about undermining the fundamentals of this very building that we're in and the democracy that we, of course, are so honoured to participate in.

To me, it is completely objectionable in what I think is the most vibrant democracy on the planet, Australia. I think we have excellent free and fair elections. We have robust contests for elected office—the federal parliament, state parliaments and local government. I'm certainly someone who likes to fight as hard as I possibly can, but I always accept the result and the verdict of the people, I believe the people always get it right, and, of course, whenever the next opportunity comes along to contest an election or to put forward a new policy proposition, we again engage in a spirited, robust public debate which is completely grounded in the foundation of us having the right to free speech in this country and there being no mechanism, particularly not one run by any government, to impinge on that.

My first point would be that I actually suspect that this legislation isn't even constitutional. If it passes the parliament, which I hope it doesn't, I fully expect it to be before the High Court pretty rapidly. I think that it is wrong for the parliament to be considering passage of legislation that has any risk of falling foul of the Constitution. I would very rarely criticise the great Menzies government, but they were indeed wrong to legislate the illegalisation of the Communist Party, and that was legislation that was struck down by the High Court. This is legislation that falls in a very similar category. If this parliament is foolish enough to pass it, I strongly hope that our High Court, as an important check and balance to the legislative branch of our government and, indeed, as guardians of our Constitution, will toss it out. It most surely falls foul of precedents they've already established in previous cases, around the implicit right to free speech that exists within our Constitution. In my view, beyond question, this legislation—every element of it, from its principle down to some of its appalling specific characteristics—is completely at odds with that great fundamental right that we have in this nation, in our democracy, to free speech.

Indeed, I find that it adds insult to injury that we're debating this bill so close to 11 November, that solemn date when we commemorate and reflect on the sacrifice of so many Australians in the First World War—but now, of course, Remembrance Day is about the sacrifice of our soldiers in all conflicts, who, of course, have often sacrificed their lives and certainly have sacrificed their youth, their innocence and what they could have done in their early years rather than join and serve our nation and fight in wars for freedoms like our freedom of speech. In a few days, at 11 am on 11 November, we will all pause to reflect on the sacrifice that they've made.

Apart from reflecting on their sacrifice, what we as members of this chamber can do is a vote down a bill that betrays that sacrifice and that effectively says we as a parliament, despite the fact that more than 100,000 Australians have lost their lives in conflicts of good versus evil and, beyond question, protecting democracy and protecting freedom against dictatorship and tyranny, are considering passing legislation that belongs in an autocracy. It belongs in a dictatorship. It belongs in eras like the Third Reich in Nazi Germany or many of the other abhorrent and appalling regimes that have existed that we have stood up against throughout the history of our nation. It is truly appalling that we are even considering this legislation.

'Misinformation' and 'disinformation' are the sorts of labels you expect to read about in fictitious novels about big government controlling the citizenry. This is not even a thinly veiled attempt, in my view, to conceal the fact that we have a government that is seeking to pass legislation to proudly restrict the freedom of citizens of this country to express themselves and to say what they want about issues of the day, things they feel strongly about, things they feel passionately about. I very much have diametrically opposed views to a range of opinions that are put out there particularly in social media. I have the right in this great, free society, with my right of free speech that every other Australian has, to contest things I think are inaccurate or wrong or matters that I disagree with.

I have great faith in the power of argument. I have great faith that, if someone is making a point that I believe is incorrect or that many of us believe is incorrect, particularly in the context of political debate, election campaigns and arguing between different propositions or proposals for our country, a strong argument will defeat a weak argument and/or inaccurate argument. I think, by and large, that actually happens. When I think about all of the great contests that we've had in the public debate through the history of this great democracy, I can't think of many examples where the best argument hasn't defeated an inaccurate argument. I have no fear—as all of us in the coalition have no fear—even if people are engaging in misinformation and disinformation through online platforms and anywhere else in our society. A good-quality constructed argument against that should have no fear of winning the day, whatever the contest might be.

I am suspicious about the timing of this bill. I am very suspicious that the government wants to sit late and get this through the parliament. I can see it probably will pass the House of Representatives, disappointingly, because the government controls this chamber. I don't say it that often, but thank God we have a Senate—because at least that is a chamber where I can hold out hope that even people that we do not tend to be on the same side of an argument with, generally speaking, on the political left might hold some of the same fears that we in the coalition do about government regulating free speech in this country. But we are sitting late to force this debate to conclude. There are rumours that this parliament might not meet again after the November sittings, and I have significant concerns that the reason this is being raced through the chamber now to get it to the Senate so the government, they hope, can pass it through the Senate is for this legislation to be in place before the next federal election. That is deeply concerning, even if the High Court strikes this sort of legislation down, and I hope if this bill were to pass that will occur. I also don't know what damage may occur to our democracy in the meantime, particularly if there is an election held under this legislation, or what that will mean and what impact that will have on the rights that we absolutely fundamentally have to speak freely in political debate.

I'm from the state of South Australia. We have electoral laws for state elections that are nowhere near as bad as this, but they're still pretty curious. They're called the truth-in-advertising laws. There are indeed proposals from the government on top of this terrible legislation to also legislate a similar regime for federal elections. As someone who has participated in the campaign hierarchy of a number of state elections in South Australia, they absolutely lead to and achieve the opposite of what they sound like they're meant to be achieving. It turns into a situation where the legislation is weaponised by political opponents. We've certainly received evidence from the Australian Electoral Commissioner himself during the electoral matters inquiry into these truth-in-advertising laws saying: 'Please don't make me some kind of arbiter over truth. I want to be an independent officer that runs elections. If you come to me and say, "Hey, that candidate has put this thing out, and it's wrong, and you need to determine that it's wrong," that compromises my independence, and it obviously turns me into a participant in a political contest when I am meant to be and want to be the independent arbiter.'

This is what's all before us if this legislation passes. This of course will be weaponised. We will have situations in political contests and a whole range of other parts of civil society—regrettably, this applies way beyond just political debate, but it's the first and best example of why we should fear it and defeat it—where we have open lawfare becoming a part of political debate and political contest in this country. It'll all be about lawyers at 20 paces. Every time someone has something to say about what they'll do if they're elected or what their opponent might do if their opponent wins, it'll all be about racing off to court and having a dispute about it. Through this legislation, it'll be about when we post things on online platforms and what and how pressure is brought to bear to try and censor people's arguments and legitimate and fair rights to engage in political contest and political argument. Again, I have confidence that the High Court won't let legislation like this ever get that far, but I also make the point that there'll be a period of time until the High Court deals with all of those matters that is at risk of having serious consequences to our democracy.

The worst part that I identify in this legislation, on top of the appallingness of the principle, is the powers it gives to the executive government and the powers it gives to the minister and agencies that report to the minister. Again, we have this situation where misinformation and disinformation are totally contestable. Anyone can concoct a claim that something is misinformation or disinformation. In this legislation, we have a situation where the minister has these powers to direct inquiries and investigations. Of course, ministers are from the political class. They are political participants. They are in the government that is campaigning against an opposition. They are compromised and have a bias with these powers to use them in ways that might bring about political advantage to them or political disadvantage to their opponents.

I could go on and on about a whole range of other significant issues with the specifics of the legislation, but, whilst they're important and they make the argument about why there are so many problems with this proposal, beyond that, the most important thing is that fundamentally this is an assault on the cherished right of free speech that all Australians have and enjoy. More than 100,000 Australians have died to secure and ensure that that right is enduring for us into perpetuity. I strongly urge this chamber to reflect on the principle that we would be embarking upon if we made a decision to legislate something that is so grotesquely abhorrent and offensive to the values that, until this legislation was brought before this parliament, I believed were held in ubiquity by every single member of this chamber. I urge that the second reading be defeated.

See this speech in context