Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you may be well aware, I have a longstanding and abiding commitment to freedom of speech in a free society. I believe in the freedom of all Australians to be able to stand up and express their views without recourse or repercussions. Of course, freedom of speech is a complex issue. There are a lot of people around who like to talk about their freedom of speech but seem uninterested in the freedom of speech of others. The reality is that, like all freedoms, it sits within a context. Freedom is critically important, but it is enlivened by a framework of laws, policy and a culture, I might add, around what people can say in the freedom of a society; but you need to have a preservation of the institutions within that society and, of course, also protect it from external threats.

When I was, in my former capacity, serving as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, the primacy that I put on those foundational freedoms was clear by the fact that I wasn't given just the formal title of Australia's Human Rights Commissioner but also dubbed by the then Attorney-General, the Hon. George Brandis QC, now high commissioner, as the 'Freedom Commissioner'. Tragically, or may I say blissfully, some people on the other side of this chamber like to occasionally taunt me with titles like 'Freedom Boy', which I take as a badge of honour, because, in the end, if you're not prepared to stand up for basic freedoms, I really don't know what the point of you being in this place is. But that is not the principal purpose of what I want to discuss tonight.

The concern I have is twofold. Recently I was in the United Kingdom, in France and in Ireland on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. Each of those countries, in their own subtle way—whether it was through the challenges of elections, whether it was Brexit, whether it was their own presidential election or whether it was domestic ordinary elections for parliament—is facing a concern over the increasing foreign interference of some foreign agents in wanting to engage in influencing democratic processes through the production of false or misleading so-called news reports which are then spread and promoted through social media. Of course, there are allegations against a number of countries, principally Russia, which has sought to publish and produce content which is false, based on lies or misinformation designed specifically to target domestic populations to turn them against their own citizens, as part of almost a divide-and-conquer strategy of foreign policy.

Countries like the UK, like Ireland and like France are dealing with the realities of this, because of course it creates problems in domestic elections. It creates increasing problems, because when you have so much information that is available, as it is today—and we are certainly living in a time where information is more readily available than in human history—and the credibility of that information is not able to be easily tested, you have a problem. These countries are now seeking to see what it is that they can do to offset the influence of foreign actors trying to influence their domestic elections. It's not an attempt to silence or shut down legitimate points of view or differences of opinion against political rivals; but what happens when people deliberately insert into your domestic political debate falsehoods like, 'Donald Trump was endorsed by the Pope'? That is clearly false. Well, we don't know what his private view is, but he certainly didn't publicly endorse Donald Trump. Of course, using that example demonstrates a challenge faced by the United States as well.

How is it that you can design legislation and laws? They're principally seeking to do so through a process of transparency at the moment, by trying to impose an obligation where source information's origin is disclosed so that people can make their own judgements of credibility. So, if there is content about domestic elections and it comes from a source in Russia, or certainly a Russian server, unsurprisingly, you can then make an assessment that perhaps that might have some degree of influence from a foreign agent, just because it isn't coming under the banner of RT or Russia Today, but also subversive blog sites and the like.

So we have a critical challenge here. This is one that may be befalling other countries, but we may have it in good order as well. There is a clear tension between some of the issues around freedom of speech and democratic participation, as well as dealing with fundamental issues of national security. If we're not ahead of this and seen to learn from the activities of other nations, then we will only be waiting until there's a time in the future where other countries seek to take advantage of our charity, our generosity and our freedom to subvert not just the democratic process but, ultimately, the authority and strength of the state.

I put that in the context that I have other concerns. In fact, in this chamber, a colleague who, by pure coincidence, happens to be in the chamber with me, the member for Canning, recently raised concerns around an individual by the name of Chau Chak Wing and his involvement in various activities related to our domestic concern. I am not going to get involved in the issues around that case. I know it is presently before the courts. In my opinion, it would be irresponsible for me to say anything about that at the immediate time. However, I do have concerns when people who are accused of what are, frankly, serious issues are able to haul media outlets who seek to report some of this conduct into court under defamation law. Don't misunderstand me. I believe in defamation law, and I believe in people's right to defend their reputation. But I do think we're entering a new phase, where allegations—whether they are of bribery or foreign interference in our electoral process, which is something the legislation now going through the parliament is seeking to address, or foreign interference that may be seeking to do more nefarious things—cannot be called out by the media, without fear or favour, because of threats of defamation suits, the practice of defamation law. For people seeking to protect themselves, the standard and the test in law for those who are making the allegations may be so high that they may not be able to defend themselves, particularly on the basis of truth.

In the two examples I have outlined, there is clearly a challenge for our country in dealing with the tensions between preserving the institutions of our democracy—the preservation of the state which we've signed up to support by being elected to this parliament and standing in this place—and the need to preserve freedom of speech. I am not going to jump to conclusions about how we are best able to accommodate these issues and address our laws in dealing with them. In regard to both examples, we do, in part, need to look at the experiences overseas, but I do think we're coming up to a critical moment where we should be prompting an inquiry. This parliament, whether that be in the House or the Senate, should move for an inquiry by a joint standing committee, at the request of the Attorney-General or by some other mechanism, to understand the practical reality of what our current laws mean for freedom of speech in dealing with foreign actors and foreign agents, particularly those who may wish our nation ill or may be engaged in conduct which is contrary to the preservation of the state and/or our national security.

This is the sort of action that this parliament could take that could be constructive, proactive and do a lot to protect the interests of this nation, so a recognition of defamation law and some tensions around national interests is critical. Part of that is that members should be able to stand up and raise concerns in this parliament under parliamentary privilege, and we should acknowledge that that's part of it. But, in addition to that, we should recognise that we must not have an environment where foreign agents and foreign actors can seek to use false or inaccurate information designed to divide citizens and turn them against each other in electoral processes, as has occurred in other countries, and that, in working with social media companies and the like, there is a necessity to see how we can build not just the legal infrastructure but the social infrastructure and work with commercial enterprises to protect this great nation, because the cost of sitting around and waiting for an attack, as it were, in the future is too high. Our democracy and the institutions that underpin it are very strong, but they are also, at times, vulnerable to the influence and the attitude of others who want to undermine them, and I would rather not see that occur. I would rather see those of us who stood for election to serve in this parliament and serve their country take a proactive approach in defending this nation's interests. I think the opportunity is ripe to take that action.