Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. In my office I've had quite a bit of communication from constituents. I haven't had anyone that's been for it; they've all been against the bill. Some of the views can be quite extreme, which you'd expect; it tends to push a nerve with some people. I've had Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley's Brave New World quoted to me many times. There are also a lot of people out there who are probably not that extreme on the matter. There is a big question that everyone's asking. People say, 'We understand the intent of this bill, and everyone hates it when people are hurt by information that turned out not to be true, but the question is: is this bill going to alleviate those hurts, and will it eliminate them?' I would answer no to both questions.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is a basic human right, and this legislation threatens that right. I understand that maybe those out there who support this bill see it as a way of protecting people from information that may harm them. Sadly, people may be harmed by information. That has happened, and it will continue to happen. But the reverse is also true: information that, with the best intentions, might at first have been thought to be harmful turned out not to be harmful and in some cases was later proven to actually have been helpful.

The role of government is really complex. There's a balance between being too lax, leading to harm, and being too constrictive, which also leads to harm. Legislation and laws are there to protect us as a society and as individuals. If you hold a raw egg too loosely, you'll drop it, and there'll be a mess, but, if you squeeze it too tightly, there's also going to be a mess. This proposed bill is an example of squeezing too tightly, and, if it's passed, it'll create a mess.

Slowly but surely, this Labor government has been introducing and passing legislation that erodes our freedoms, all in the name of government control over our lives. History tells us that, when nations go down this path, there is a breaking point where their citizens say, 'No more.' Depending on the civilisation, the results have included revolutions and wars, as people are just fed up. Fortunately, in a democracy such as Australia, governments are peacefully voted out without bloodshed, and I for one am very grateful for that.

When I speak to constituents in the electorate of Longman, which I serve, I find that many are fast reaching the point of feeling strangled, whether it be the small-business owner who's had more and more red tape thrust upon them, fuelling the stress that they are enduring as the economy weakens; the consumer who is being forced to use digital IDs simply to go about everyday tasks; or the hardworking low- to middle-income workers who, under the latest legislation, will have to fund the HECS debts of doctors and lawyers who end up making three to five times what they will earn. That's right: every household in the country will have to contribute an extra $1,600 to the education of people who will earn much more than many of them will ever earn. That doesn't sound like the policy of a party that is supposed to be for the working class or the battler, does it?

In all cases, it is our right to speak what we believe and to listen to what we choose to listen to and then make a choice of what we will believe. Ironically, the very place I stand in, making this speech against this communist style bill, allows me the freedom to make this speech. Of course, there will be those who honestly believe that this will protect people from harm and should be implemented, but the question I ask these people is: who is the arbiter of truth? Who decides what is misinformation? The government? God help us all if that's the case. Bureaucrats? The social media companies? A few powerful individuals who control the media?

Of course, there will be those who say: 'Why do we have speed limits, then? Why not just allow freedoms in every aspect of life?' Well there's one difference here: we have data, and indisputable facts derived from that data, showing that speeding increases mortality rates. Hence, we have speed limits. However, it is your right to have an opinion about speed limits contrary to the laws, because your opinion won't kill people but breaking the law by speeding will increase the chances of your killing someone. We have laws in place where, if you feel you have been wronged or misled, you can proceed through the court system and seek justice there. Part of being human is the freedom to make your own choices and live with the consequences of these choices, both good and bad. If there's only one point of view on a subject, this is not a choice, and, without choice, our humanity is taken away from us.

The other component of this bill I despise is the implication that uneducated people have no value and aren't allowed to voice their opinion. I refer to the component of the bill that exempts academics, scientists and artists. I'm often bemused by the fact that many of the most successful people I know in business are the most uneducated and, in many cases, have the educated working for them. Yet, under this proposed legislation, their opinions and points of view, often learnt through real life and through enduring sometimes painful experiences, are regarded as having no value compared to those of someone who has learnt things in theory from a textbook. For me, information and opinions from both the educated and uneducated need to be available so I can watch or listen to both, as they both have value. That should always be my choice. Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs all have one thing in common—they didn't have a university degree when they started their businesses. They learnt on the job. But under this legislation, it could be that a YouTube video on success and business from one of these highly successful individuals, if whoever the almighty arbiter of truth has deemed their opinion and content as misinformation as they are not academics, could be banned.

What about when it comes to someone's own health? Speaking to many different people, I have people who swear by naturopathy, reiki, Bowen therapy, chiropractic—the list goes on and on. If the great arbiter of truth was driven by the AMA or big pharma, would any information from these alternative health providers, which may not meet the academic level, be banned under misinformation? No. All sides need to be able to put their point of view across or sell their message. Then it is up to the individual to make a choice on how they care for their body's health needs.

What about spiritual matters? Matters of religion and faith are extremely personal. More and more in our modern society, people who are searching for meaning in their life are using the internet and social media platforms to avail themselves of different points of view before making a decision. If the great arbiter of truth was an atheist, would that mean that information on Hindu, Muslim, Christian and all other faiths would be banned as misinformation? What if the great arbiter of truth was a Buddhist? Would that mean that all information about other faiths, including atheism and humanism, would be banned? The core problem is that the bill empowers digital platforms, government bureaucrats or whoever the great arbiter of truth is to determine whether or not a religious belief is reasonable. This point is well made in a submission on the bill by the combined faith leaders, representing a large number of faiths, including the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist churches and the Shiah Muslim community. The submission notes:

… that digital providers will be assessing whether the content of a religious belief is reasonable in determining whether or not it is misinformation. This is the same as saying that providers are empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself.

As the submission states, 'This 'reasonableness' test is highly inappropriate to be applied to religious speech.'

What's next? We tell people what to eat? We ban certain foods because we think they are bad for people? It's our right to choose to eat a nutritious diet, and, if we do so, normally this choice leads to a longer, happier life with fewer medical issues. It's also someone's right to make bad dietary choices, which can increase their chances of diabetes, obesity and a shortened life span. There is information that warns people of the consequences of unhealthy choices, but we respect their right to choose how they look after their body. History shows us that we were bombarded with information on how terrible it was to eat eggs, with a small minority disagreeing with this viewpoint who, in the end, were proved to be right. What if they'd been muzzled under misinformation? People still may not have been eating eggs and enjoying not only their delicious taste but their numerous health benefits.

I think there's a more sinister reason behind this bill, and that reason is political. This legislation would allow the government of the day to potentially ban any opinions that were contrary to their ideology. When you're from the Left, like the Labor-Greens coalition, this is appealing, as you can quash any opinions from those on the Right side of politics, which is why they, not us, are introducing this bill. I would personally hate to take away the right of those with socialist and communist ideologies to have their say. How can people know the beauty of the Right ideology if they have nothing to compare it to? Could it be that, deep down, they know that the Left ideology is flawed and always, ultimately, fails?

In contrast, I'm happy for both sides to be presented and debated, as I back what I believe in, and I am unafraid to defend these beliefs, as I truly believe they are best for our country and its citizens. To try and quash another point of view because you fear it is simply gutless and shows you don't back yourself and believe in your own ideologies. The difference between the coalition and the other side has never been more obvious than in our stances on this bill. While we may disagree with the Labor and Greens ideologies, I know that I will fight to the death for the right to express them, whereas, with bills such as this, they will do all they can to suppress us expressing our views. This is why I will not be supporting this bill.

See this speech in context