Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

My colleague mentions the union movement, the CFMEU, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. This bill also treats Australians differently. Academics and scientists and artists are treated differently. Now, I'm not going to criticise academics or scientists, but let's not kid ourselves and deny that history shows that sometimes the best research and the best science money can buy has backed up things that we now know to be completely wrong. If you're an academic, you can't be challenged under this legislation. I find that a bit confronting as well. That the average Australian citizen is treated like they're dumb, effectively, but if you've got a few letters in front of your name you're exempt from this legislation.

I didn't finish high school. I stand here in the parliament representing my people because they have had a good look at me and they've said to themselves: 'We like this bloke. We think he's trustworthy and we'll put him in there to represent us.' I didn't finish high school. I'm treated exactly the same in this chamber, because that's what democracy and debate is about. We're all equals. There are plenty of people in here who are far more educated than what I am, but they're equal to me in this place. That's what we should be striving for in society. But, instead, this draws a line and says: 'You're an academic. You're qualified, therefore you can speak freely. But because your friend hasn't been educated in the same way, I'm sorry, we're going treat them very differently.' This is the stuff of nightmares.

ACMA also has information-gathering powers—once again, very frightening stuff. I'm not alone, obviously. I said before that many of my constituents—there were 20,000 responses to the discussion paper when it went out, so I'm not alone. And I'll read what the New South Wales Solicitor-General, Michael Sexton, had to say. He said:

It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

That's a more articulate and concise version of what I said before. This government is treating people as if they are dumb and they can't be trusted with their own words.

An opposition member interjecting—

Or beliefs—exactly. To go to beliefs, the Australian Christian Lobby said:

There is no excuse for what's proposed in this bill.

…   …   …

Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.

If this bill passes the parliament, it will be a very, very sad day for Australia and it will signal a very dangerous future where government tells you what you can and can't say and government penalises people and organisations for not policing the truth in the way that it would like.

See this speech in context