Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection, but this is not the United States. This is Australia. It was completely unnecessary; it shouldn't have been done and you don't need legislation like this to prevent it.

But it's not just around what can be utilised in election time. Let's look at things like banks. With this legislation in place, could we have got the banking royal commission, which found so many offences, so many things that needed to be addressed? If the individuals that fought for the banking royal commission had been silenced, as they could be under this legislation, we would never have gotten to the point where those things were addressed, where banks were found to have done absolutely unlawful activities before they got fixed. I come back to the point I made earlier: the oppressed will never know that they've been oppressed if they have nothing to compare it to. Will this end up in the equivalent of digital book-burning, because someone who is not an academic puts forward a view that the government of the day decides is unacceptable and they're removed from digital platforms?

I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.

We also have the issue around referendums. We've just recently been through a referendum. There are those out there who claim that the referendum was defeated because of misinformation. I clearly remember the member for Melbourne having a shot at me on Q+A about some of the advertising that I utilised in the referendum, claiming it was misinformation. It wasn't. It was based on actual legislation that was implemented in the Western Australian state government and applied. That was later withdrawn because it was a mistake, but it was factual. The idea that any government would be able to determine what your reasonable belief is, and prevent you from having it, is an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.

And then we find in the legislation that there's the ability for the minister to exempt digital platforms. Well, here's a couple of proposals. For example, would this Labor government exempt a digital platform for the CFMEU, who we know have been found and convicted for criminal offences? This legislation would allow the government of the day to exempt a CFMEU digital platform. This is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation.

I will use one example of the treatment of academics and scientists which is very well-known—the views of Peter Ridd, for which he was removed from his place at university in Queensland. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but I agree with his absolute right to have them. If I recall one of his elements correctly, Mr Ridd made the point that an entire flood season for a year in Queensland is the equivalent of one tide into the Great Barrier Reef, one wash-through, and that sounds a pretty commonsense approach to me. How would ACMA, which would have information-gathering powers, go about perhaps getting a warrant? At what level will that apply? Looking at advice and comments from experts in the field, I will go to the New South Wales solicitor-general, Michael Sexton, who said about this legislation, 'It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement.'

I will come back to the referendum. The Australian people informed themselves and made a decision and that decision should be respected because it was the majority belief of the people who were able to vote in this country and that is what our democratic system is about. Of course we should protect the minorities but all governments of any stripe should govern for the majority of the people and their views, not tell them what their views are, not prevent them from having a reasonable belief, not prevent them from putting forward that view in whatever platform they wish. As I continue to make the point, I am totally accepting that online platforms are part of your actual life but you should be identified, you should have verified accounts, and, whether or not the big Meta operators like that, to be honest, I really don't care.

This is a very dangerous bill. I think the Australian people, once informed, will oppose it. I come to the question that I asked earlier: Why the urgency on this bill? Why now? Why does it need to be put forward? The sceptic in me that has been in place for 11 years says it is all about the next federal election and whether the government of the day can control the message, the thoughts, the reasonable beliefs of the Australian people. I find that unacceptable and I will oppose this bill. I will continue to oppose it, as I have done from the day that the concept was put forward, because it is not in our nation's interest, it is not in the people of Australia's interest that they cannot have their reasonable belief, that they cannot put forward their view and that they cannot have freedom of speech. We should not support this bill in this place or the other place and, if it is successfully passed, we should fight it and, if we win government next year, we should repeal it.

See this speech in context