Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

This is a woeful piece of legislation. It is a woeful piece of legislation from a grossly incompetent government, incompetent on so many fronts that the list is getting so long it would be hard to read out in the time that I have allocated for this speech, which is 15 minutes. We are here debating and discussing this when we should be dealing with cost-of-living crisis, when we should be dealing with an immigration crisis, when we should be dealing with an infrastructure crisis which has seen roads deteriorate across this nation, when we should be dealing with a health crisis where we're not seeing the doctors that we need being put in place and when we should be dealing with issues that go to the heart of what the Australian people are feeling in their day-to-day lives—the fact that their standard of living has just declined at rates that we haven't seen in decades. The fact that we're not dealing with those issues and instead are dealing with an issue where the government wants to try and censor the people is completely and utterly beyond the pale.

The coalition will oppose this bill because the government keeps getting it wrong. The government tried to bring in a first bill and had to withdraw it because it was such a bad piece of legislation. They've now brought in this second bill, and, once again, if they were going to do the right thing by the Australian people, they would pull this bill as well, because there are so many fundamental flaws in it that it's not funny.

Let's start with the process. They put out an exposure draft of this bill. Guess how many days they gave people to comment? Less than a week. It beggars belief that for such an important piece of legislation—it goes to the heart of our democracy and the heart of our society, which is the ability of people to exercise free speech—people were given a week to be able to file in their thoughts, their comments and their feedback. It was a bad process for such an important bill.

Then there was bad decision-making. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings. If that sounds draconian to you, it sounds draconian because it is. What are the guidelines for the minister? What are the guardrails for the minister? What's to stop the minister abusing these powers? These are the sorts of powers that you'd think that this government would be fighting against, especially in today's geopolitical climate, where we're seeing the rise of totalitarian regimes. Yet here they are trying to put in place powers which would be more at home in those types of regimes than they would be here.

The minister may exempt digital platforms. As the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, said, if the CFMEU had a digital platform, the minister could exempt that. What could anyone do about that? That's a very good question. Who decides which digital platforms we can have in this country and which ones we can't? The minister. I think it's a requirement of every Labor Party MP in this country to be backed by a union of some sort. So do you think the minister, if they're backed by a particular union, is going to say, 'No, sorry, your digital platform needs to be brought down because of misinformation'? No. The minister can pick and choose, and that is deeply concerning.

There's the unequal treatment of content. Academics, scientists, artists and parody or satire are exempt, except the views of everyday Australians aren't. There are so many holes in this that it is not even worth bearing consideration, because all it will lead to is all of us turning into everyday comics. Everyone will start using satire or parody to get their point across. Half the time when they're being serious on that side, we think they're practising parody or satire, but in this instance they're actually legislating for it. You'll be able to spread misinformation or disinformation through bad parody, bad jokes and bad satire, and who will decide whether it is or isn't? Of course, it'll be the minister. How does that work for everyday Australians?

It's almost incomprehensible how this has been drafted, because it is completely and utterly unworkable, and the only thing it will be used for is to shut down people trying to express a firmly held view. It could be a firmly held view when it comes to a political belief, a religious belief or a civil belief. Those views can be shut down. This is not the sort of country that everyday Australians want to live in. They want to be able to express their views. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of Australians now who worry that they can't freely express themselves. With this, that will get even more worrying and more concerning for them. I say to the government: please come to the dispatch box and explain how, when it comes to artists, parody or satire, that is going to work when it comes to this bill? It is clear and obvious that it won't.

There's also the unequal treatment of content, so-called professional news content. If something appears in professional news content, effectively mainstream media, it cannot be misinformation. But, if the same view or a contrary view were put outside of professional news content, it could be misinformation. How does this work? You could have exactly the same view as an everyday Australian and put that view, and that could be misinformation. Yet, if a mainstream media outlet expresses exactly the same view, that's fine. How is this workable? How is this manageable? Once again, who makes the decision as to whether or not it is misinformation or disinformation? That is the real question that needs to be answered.

Another concern that we have is that the bill gives ACMA so-called information-gathering powers. The bill gives ACMA powers to require digital platforms to provide it with information relevant to misinformation and disinformation. The bill extends ACMA's information-gathering powers to individuals who work for or are otherwise associated with digital platforms. Employees, contractors and fact checkers are subject to these powers. ACMA can use these powers if it thinks the person may have information or a document relevant to misinformation. The person must hand over documents to ACMA as requested or face fines of more than $9,000.

I assume that the minister has spoken to ACMA about whether they want these powers or not and whether, as an entity, this is the type of enforcing that ACMA should be doing. Does it have the relevant skills to investigate? Does it have the relevant skills to gather information? Does it have the relevant powers to be able to do this and then to fine? It is not something that ACMA was set up to do at all, and yet here we are giving this organisation these types of powers. Where are the guardrails? Who oversees whether ACMA are using these powers correctly or not? Who's directing ACMA? If I asked anyone in this building, I don't think anyone outside of about a handful would know who the managing director of ACMA is or who sits on their board, if they have a board or who works in that organisation. This is all of a sudden giving quite extraordinary powers to an organisation that no-one knows anything about. It is quite extraordinary.

As a result, people are raising serious concerns about this piece of legislation. The New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton has 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.

…   …   …

References to Orwell's 1984 have become something of a cliche over the years but there is a sinister suggestion of its thesis in proposed legislation that is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues …

You cannot get more damning.

The Victorian Bar association said:

… the Bill's interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services …

That is damning. The Victorian barrister and Voltaire Society president Peter A Clark was quoted in the Australianas saying the changes to the bill were the equivalent of putting 'lipstick on a pig'. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

… this bill is unsatisfactory. If the government says there are deficiencies in our laws relating to political speech, then it should introduce a Bill to parliament dealing with those deficiencies.

It goes on and on.

I think the most damning thing is what the feedback has been from people on the street. I can tell you that, in my electorate of Wannon, the feedback that I have had has all been one way. I thank every single constituent who has emailed me, written me or called my office about this bill. While they have deep concerns about the government's complete inadequacy in dealing with cost of living, infrastructure and making sure we have enough doctors, they also have deep, deep concerns about the government stepping in to control what they think and, in particular, their political expressions and the political views that they would like to express. It's why we in the coalition oppose this bill. It is why, if we are elected at the next election, we will make sure that we rip it up, because this is bad legislation being put through this parliament by a bad government.

See this speech in context