Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like, in continuation, to go through some of the so-called facts that we found out were not going to be facts. We were told a fact at the start of the year that there was going to be an El Nino. It was going to be very dry, and that was from very reputable organisations like the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. They all went out and said that. A lot of people—and this is for real—sold their cattle. They designed everything for and got ready for a drought. Boy, didn't they get themselves into trouble? It wasn't a drought. It actually started raining, and we had one of the wettest seasons on record.

If you'd gone out at that time and said, 'No, it's not going to be El Nino; it's going to be La Nina,' you would've been up against the most abundant and proficient information backed by peer reviews, and this bill would've allowed them to say, 'No, that's unreasonable.' You would've had that censored and blocked. You're allowed to be wrong in life. It's one of the great things about living in a liberal democracy. You're allowed to be stupid. You're allowed to be crazy. You're allowed because of freedom. We believe in another person's capacity to say, 'I've heard the respective member, the respective sage and the respective reporter, and I completely disagree.'

Today, we see—this is a fact, but some might disagree—Mr Trump is going to be President Trump again. I think we can all understand that. There are a lot of people there who said, when they were interviewed for vox pop, they weren't going to vote for him, but they did. This just goes to show you that so often people want that space. They want that space to go against the views; they might determine that aggravates others. We saw that in the Voice, where so many people who were asked, 'Are you supporting the Voice?' said: 'Oh, yes. I'm supporting it.' But they weren't. People want that liberty to be free. They don't want to be corralled, and they don't want that form of—especially the government. They are inherently sceptical about the government starting to have further rights in their lives. There are so many people—I've said this before and been mocked about it—who want the government out of their face. They want to not see the government in their private lives. They don't want the government to have a say over their opinions. They don't want the government to determine what they can read and what they can assess as right.

No-one is suggesting, for one second, things that are of a criminal nature such as child pornography or people who entice young girls, especially, on body image or eating disorders—we all know about that. Of course, the capacity of the platforms—to find key words, to have the analytics and to write the code, especially with AI—is there now. They should do it. That would be an entirely different debate from what we are having here right now. But this is not about that.

It talks about having religious beliefs, but they have got to be reasonable. Well, who is determining whether my beliefs are reasonable? I am far from a perfect person—if you put that up for a vote it would be won overwhelmingly!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How would you vote?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would vote with my conscience and vote that I'm not a perfect person—and I would be joined by you, no doubt. But I do believe that a person called Jesus Christ died, was crucified and rose three days later. Many people would say that that is entirely unreasonable. They would say that that's against science, that it's unprovable. They would say a whole range of things about that. But that is my belief, and I'm allowed to have it. I don't ask you to believe it; you can do what you like. But I'm allowed to believe it, I'm allowed to read it, I'm allowed to write about it and I don't want the government involved in it. I don't want the government anywhere near my belief structure. They could line scientists up from here to Goulburn saying that everything I have said is unprovable, unreasonable and not the truth. But—absolutely, 100 per cent—I believe it, and that is my right. It's also the right of about two billion other people who believe the same thing.

You can see where our concern is with this, and I think the prudent thing to do is to reaffirm to the Australian people that you have no intention of going into that space. You show you have no intention of going into that space by removing this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, from the agenda.

Of course if you don't, I and others will run a very strident campaign against this. On our side, on these sorts of things, we have success; you saw it in the Voice. You are seeing it right now with intermittent power. Intermittent power has gone from something that everybody supported, or 70 per cent supported. Now even Jennie George doesn't support it. It's just fallen flat on its face; it's absolutely falling out of bed at the moment.

If I can't appeal to the logic, let me appeal to your political nous. If you, the government, go forward to an election with this, we will absolutely hammer you and we will get votes. We will peel them off—100 per cent. It's not that the public like us or that the public don't like you. They don't like either of us. They have a cynicism against people in government. This bill that is proposed here says that the government knows what you should personally believe. It says that the government will determine what is reasonable for you to believe and that the government will allow you to read certain things and not read other things, because they will be the arbiters of the truth. That is why I find it so important that I have come out of my room to speak on this and make sure that we get this. I will put up on Facebook. I don't give a rump. I bet you it gets knocked out of the park. You'll have 2,000 likes or 3,000 likes and a thousand shares. As you know, member for Riverina and member for Moncrieff, who sits beside me—Angie and I go back a long way—these are the sorts of things, when you put them out there, you will get an overwhelming response. I bet you, if you go out there and say you are supporting this—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be the opposite way.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you will get an overwhelming response too—it will be the opposite way! So do the clever thing. The really clever thing is, going into this election, if you want to stay on that side of the chamber, if you want to have a good crack at this—and, honest to God, it is not going well for the government at the moment; it really isn't—lose this barnacle. Chuck this one out the door straightaway and give yourself a shot at the election. But if you don't listen to the argument, I will tell you right now I am going to love this piece of legislation. If you stick with it, I will absolutely smash you at every opportunity and I will have so many friends in that process.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Between 1991 and 2002 I edited a daily newspaper in Wagga Wagga. That newspaper first published on 10 October 1868, at which point, above its editorial comment piece of the day, it used these words: 'This is true liberty, when freeborn men, having to advise the public, may speak free.' It is a verse attributed to John Milton, a 17th-century English writer, who, in 1644, addressed the English parliament on unlicensed printing. But the context of his speech and the theme of his words during that address are about freedom of speech. Milton's verse, as it became known, was used by me as well. I continued the tradition of editors of the Daily Advertiser since 1868 and used that very good line on the editorial comment piece each and every day of the years that I edited the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser. It is a shame that it is not still there—it has been taken down in recent years—but the precepts of the line remain so for that publication because free speech is vital.

We are lucky because we are covered by parliamentary privilege in this place. We can stand at this dispatch box and say whatever we like without impunity by the courts. But with free speech and with parliamentary privilege come responsibility and we ought never forget that we need to be responsible as community leaders and parliamentarians for what we say because words are important. I'm pleased I can say this is where I am because outside these hallowed halls, this hallowed room, I may not get away with it. But in recent days we have seen a couple of court decisions which have shown that our court system is an interesting beast at times. I refer to a court case involving senators Mehreen Faruqi and Pauline Hanson just last Friday, when Senator Hanson was found by the court—the Federal Court, no less—to have defamed Senator Faruqi in a tweet. The post on Twitter, now X, was described by Justice Angus Stewart as 'an angry personal attack' that conveyed a 'strong form of racism'. Never mind the fact that Senator Faruqi had herself posted some things online about former prime minister Scott Morrison which, coming from a parliamentarian, were less than parliamentary.

Scott Morrison saved lives and jobs during COVID, Member for Bruce, and I will stand by him for as long as I have breath in me.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Worst Prime Minister in the modern era.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We ought to be civil. I think we could agree about that—that between parliamentarians, we should be civil, whether it's online or in here. We may agree to disagree. I just disagreed with what the member opposite had to say. He disagrees with what I had to say, and that's fine. In a civil society, we are allowed to do that. But this court case involving Senators Faruqi and Hanson has ended up in the federal court. The federal court has made a decision which you would find that many Australians would not agree with.

Today we've got a case in which we've had a ruling about the ankle bracelets worn by people. A court has determined that that should not have happened. These decisions make ordinary, everyday Australians shake their heads and think: 'Why is this so? Why is this happening?' As I said, we're lucky because we get parliamentary privilege, but the bill before the house, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, is, as the member for New England has just eloquently described, an attack on free speech. It is. The coalition will always stand up to defend free speech, just as the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser has done since 1868. We are so privileged to live in a society where we can, within reason, exercise free speech.

Just down the road there is a monument at which there are bronze rolls of honour commemorating 103,000 lives lost by men, and women too, who've gone to war and fought so that we can have a free, fair and democratic society where we can have free speech, we can have free votes and we can have fair trials. We ought to not ever forget that. I have had any number of people who have written to me and taken the time, trouble and effort to question the legislation before the House. As the member for New England correctly questions: why would the government, just months out from an election, want to put this before our nation? What effectively this legislation does is give the Australian Communications and Media Authority alarming power to determine what content is allowed on digital platforms.

As Robert Coombs of Wagga Wagga said to me, 'It would potentially act as a ministry for truth.' He was talking about ACMA. He said, 'I urge you to reconsider this bill and protect the democratic values that are fundamental to our society.' His words were ringing true in so much of the correspondence I received. John Sparkes of Cootamundra wrote: 'We've always had the freedom of speech for everyone in Australia. What will happen with this bill is one group will censor those they disagree with. We should not pass this bill.' I wholeheartedly agree. Graham Oakes of Yerong Creek said: 'I'm very concerned about the bill being pushed through by Labor and its cronies. This bill impeaches upon my freedom of speech.' 'Impeach' is one word; 'Impinge' is another. Either way, it definitely encroaches on people's freedom of speech.

I don't always agree with some of the correspondents who wrote to me about this, but the theme that went through their emails, letters and notes to me were all of the same theory. They do not want ACMA or a group of people who are unelected having to determine what they can and cannot post online. Whether it's the pub test, the courts or the general public, the fact remains that, if you put something online that is misinformation or completely defamatory, you will end up suffering the consequences. I don't agree that the court decision last Friday was necessarily correct, but that's my view, and I'm allowed to say it. I think many Australians would have the same view.

Freedom of expression is unfairly infringed by this bill. It's misinformation and disinformation. Even the two words are misnomers in themselves. If you went down the main street of any regional town—indeed, any community in Australia—and asked what the difference between mis- and disinformation are, you'd get a lot of different views. A lot of people wouldn't actually even understand what the difference was. But they do know that they have a right to genuine free speech. They do know that they don't want their views censored, and they do know that their forefathers fought so that they would be able to have freedom of speech.

The bill is untimely. No matter what time the government ever brought this in, it was going to be the wrong time. This is a reconfiguration of an earlier version of the same bill that Labor went away and tried to fix up. It has come back, and it's still all about face. It's still not right. It's still wrong. What's going to happen is that ACMA are going to have huge power, huge authority, over what people can and cannot say. Who are ACMA to determine what people can or cannot say? Due to the backlash and significant issues with this bill, Labor scrapped plans to introduce it late last year, opted to overhaul it and have now brought it back again. It's still a dog's breakfast. It stifles academic debate. How can a single authority claim it can determine and regulate the supposed objective truth of science or morality?

I can well recall a press conference when I was Deputy Prime Minister—I might even have been Acting Prime Minister—where I was asked a question and I said that facts could be argued about a certain matter, and I got absolutely slammed by the usual suspects on X or Twitter. Call it what you like, but it was Twitter back then. Still to this day, people throw it up at me. There are so many subjects where you get people of academia and learned authority who are steadfastly of one view. To say that they are 100 per cent correct is always sometimes subject to question. If we still went along with that theory that authorities are always right, we would still believe right now that the earth was the centre of the solar system or the universe. Copernicus was absolutely maligned for having his view. People were burnt at the stake for having certain views that were different to the church and the crown at the time. Those views that were being expressed by the crown and the church at the time have now proven to be completely wrong and completely distorted.

Even Meta and X are concerned that this bill goes too far. The member for New England said that he would campaign against it and encouraged the government to bring it on. There are so many people out there who are just so sick and tired of their views being stifled and their opinions being shut out. We've seen all too often, particularly in recent years, how the bubble here in Canberra have thought one thing and the silent majority out in the rest of Australia have known the other thing. They've expressed it at the ballot box. They expressed it at the referendum ballot last year when the Voice was roundly defeated. But many people's views at that time were also shut out. In a future referendum over any particular subject or other, would people have their views censored by ACMA if this bill were to succeed?

At the moment, as I speak, we're seeing an American election. I remember that the last time we had an American election we had people being able to take PTSD leave after the result went one way or the other. Even when Donald Trump won the first time, people were seeking leave from their work because they didn't like the result. There were so many things said and done over that election that just caused so much division within society. Thankfully, we're not quite there yet, and hopefully we will never get to that stage. I think this parliament and this society is far more conciliatory than the USA. That said, this is bad legislation. This is a bad bill. It needs to be rejected. It must be rejected for the sake of freedom of speech in Australia.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the special significance of this piece of legislation and the feelings of anger it excites in me, I have done something I have not done before. I have engaged the services of a speechwriter I'm happy to admit. Members opposite and on my side, having heard my previous contributions, might think that a very good idea. You'll find the language perhaps somewhat dated, but I've got to admit that it's so rare that I have found and come across someone who has been able to speak from my heart with their own lips. So bear with me.

The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.

…   …   …

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

…   …   …

In the present age—which has been described as "destitute of faith, but terrified at scepticism"—in which people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them—the claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society.

It's a decision made not by the people but by those who lead them.

Mankind can hardly be too often reminded, that there was once a man named Socrates, between whom and the legal authorities and public opinion of his time, there took place a memorable collision.

He says Socrates:

… was put to death by his countrymen, after a judicial conviction, for impiety and immorality. Impiety, in denying the gods recognised by the State; indeed his accuser asserted (see the "Apologia") that he believed in no gods at all. Immorality, in being, by his doctrines and instructions, a "corruptor of youth." Of these charges the tribunal, there is every ground for believing, honestly found him guilty, and condemned the man who probably of all then born had deserved best of mankind, to be put to death as a criminal.

…   …   …

In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life; until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away.

Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity. Unless opinions favourable to democracy and to aristocracy, to property and to equality, to co-operation and to competition, to luxury and to abstinence, to sociality and individuality, to liberty and discipline, and all other standing antagonisms of practical life, are expressed with equal freedom, and enforced and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both elements obtaining their due; one scale is sure to go up, and the other down. Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites, that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners. Of any of the great open questions just enumerated, if either of the two opinions has a better claim than the other, not merely to be tolerated, but to be encouraged and countenanced, it is the one which happens at that particular time and place to be in a minority. That is the opinion which, for the time being, represents the neglected interests, the side of human well-being which is in danger of obtaining less than its share. I am aware that there is not, in this country, any intolerance of differences of opinion on most of these topics. They are adduced to show, by admitted and multiplied examples, the universality of the fact, that only through diversity of opinion is there, in the existing state of human intellect, a chance of fair play to all sides of the truth. When there are persons to be found, who form an exception to the apparent unanimity of the world on any subject, even if the world is in the right, it is always probable that dissentients have something worth hearing to say for themselves, and that truth would lose something by their silence.

…   …   …

I do not pretend that the most unlimited use of the freedom of enunciating all possible opinions would put an end to the evils of religious or philosophical sectarianism. Every truth which men of narrow capacity are in earnest about, is sure to be asserted, inculcated, and in many ways even acted on, as if no other truth existed in the world, or at all events none that could limit or qualify the first. I acknowledge that the tendency of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often heightened and exacerbated thereby; the truth which ought to have been, but was not, seen, being rejected all the more violently because proclaimed by persons regarded as opponents. But it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood. And since there are few mental attributes more rare than that judicial faculty which can sit in intelligent judgement between two sides of a question, of which only one is represented by an advocate before it, truth has no chance but in proportion as every side of it, every opinion which embodies any fraction of the truth, not only finds advocates, but is so advocated as to be listened to.

Deputy Speaker, as you will have worked out quite quickly, my speechwriter gifted me this some time ago. It was in 1859, when it was written by John Stuart Mill. It comes from the second chapter of his book On Liberty. It torments me no end that we are back there, finding ourselves in that same age-old debate between the voice of the many that struggles to be heard and the might of the few that would suppress it. We are back there, and I am happy to stand against the government on this bill. I am happy to find myself standing with Mill.

Among all of the words that rang true in 1859 and that we find ourselves dealing with today is the idea that, not just in this place but in the world around us, amongst the voices of those that we represent here, there is not a uniformity of opinion—quite the opposite. There is the constant competition of ideas playing out right across Australia and across the Western world. We are a reflection of that, and it's important that that plays out. I would argue that that competition of ideas is what has bent the arc of Western civilisation towards freedom, towards the better world that we live in now, towards equality and towards just laws. Competition plays its part. We must always be wary of governments, corporations or anybody who would use their power to stifle or reduce the voice of the many. This is an age-old problem. There is nothing new in what is being presented in this bill or in the government's intent. This is an age-old fight, and we must stand by the freedom to say what we would say. It must belong to us. It cannot be taken from us. We cannot stand by and let this fall away.

My message to Australians who will hear this debate played out, as the first attempt quite frankly played out and failed across Australia, is: Australians, say your piece and say it now. The intent of the government is clear. It seeks to stifle debate. It seeks not only to determine what is truth but to stop words being spoken that are against that chosen truth. One of the clearest denouncements we can make of this bill and its intent is that what that truth is can change not only from government to government but from minister to minister. The ridiculous idea that our conversations will now be judged on a single axiom that comes straight out of the executive carpet is absolutely ridiculous and will be fought against. This is a battle that has lost the public debate once in Australia and will lose it again. I have absolutely no doubt. The member for New England was quite right: Australians will not tolerate this. Australians will not tolerate being told by a government what they can and cannot say, what is right and what is wrong.

There's an ongoing debate in Western society about what it is that ails us and why it is that we seem to have reached a peak in the last decade where we've stifled and stalled, where our growth is no longer there, where cultures that do not contribute as much to the world as ours seem somehow to be overtaking us and moving faster than us. I would point to this very bill as an example of what is wrong with Western civilisation at the moment—that it would seek to strangle its own voice, that it would no longer value the contributions of its own members and turn towards a totalitarian view of how we are governed and how we allow ourselves to be governed.

I am against this with everything in my body. I never imagined, when becoming a politician, that I would be standing up and speaking against a bill that would give the government the power to determine what is right or wrong and to shut down those who oppose its view. It is beyond my comprehension that in this day and age that idea could have made its way all the way here. It belongs in some undergraduate, left-wing, university campus, Greens party debate. It's ridiculous. It is beneath us. We went through this centuries ago. We must stand up and fight it. There is nothing more important to Australia right now than this. On all of the decisions that government makes, be they right or wrong, we have formed a system of government, the Westminster system, where we can scrutinise openly and publicly those decisions. We can challenge them in debate. We have that right here on the floor of parliament. We cannot allow a world where that right stops once we walk outside these walls. That is not an Australia that is deserving of the sacrifices of all those who fought and died for this great nation. It is an absolute betrayal of all those who worked hard and came here under different waves and made this great nation.

This bill is almost an exact replica of what went before it that was rejected so forcefully by the Australian people. This government should hang its head in shame for bringing it back again during the closing down sale of this government. It's a last desperate attempt to save a failing government. The member for Riverina was quite right in his comments. We must maintain the dignity in our debate, and I acknowledge that this issue brings out feelings of great anger in me. It is important that we can debate this and debate it in a way that is based on values, based on policy and is not an attack on each other.

I do think it is important to point out the intention behind this bill. I think it is beneath this government to seek to silence Australians who choose not to accept their version of the truth. I think it is beneath this government. That is not the Labor that I remember from my youth. That is not the Labor government that, in previous years, has served this nation well; it is not. It is certainly not a bill becoming of the Australia I grew up in and it is not a bill that is becoming of the Australia that I am raising my children in. We must fight against this. We will continue to and we will win.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Groom giving his passionate address, I also rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. We have seen this before. There was an exposure draft last year. It was condemned by a range of groups including human rights groups, civil liberties groups, lawyers and proponents of free speech in this country and it was withdrawn. What has come back is no better. What has come back is a shocking attack on free speech in this country.

But before I go into detail about what I believe is wrong with this bill, let us talk about the principles that we believe in and that we should believe in in this country. We should believe in free speech and we should believe in the fight to defend it. As the member for Riverina said earlier, there is a memorial not far from here which details the sacrifices and courage a lot of people who went before us in this country showed in order that we could have a free and fair society, and freedom of expression is part of that free and fair society.

I believe in the often-quoted Voltaire line in relation to freedom of speech: 'I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.' That should underpin and indeed has underpinned the principles of Australian society. It is what makes living in Australia and comparative free nations in North America and Europe different to the lives of people who live in regimes in parts of Asia, in Eastern Europe pre-1990, when those freedoms were not afforded to those people and those societies did not succeed.

Some people come into my office and I fundamentally disagree with them. I fundamentally disagree with them, but isn't it great that we live in a society where they can come into their local member's office, put positions that are at odds with what I believe but that I am obligated to listen to them? I don't want their right to put those views on social media to be taken away from them, even though I disagree with those views. This happens on a regular basis.

The key problem with the government's misinformation bill is it has a very broad definition of what 'misinformation' is. That captures opinions that can be held in good faith. There is no requirement in this bill that the maker of the statement is actually maliciously intending to deceive people. If something is reasonably verifiable as misleading and reasonably likely to cause and contribute serious harm, it can be captured as misinformation. We use the word 'reasonable' a lot in this place, and it's in a lot of laws. What's reasonable, and who decides what is reasonable?

I'm just going to give you an example of something. Liberal Senator Chandler said something in the Tasmanian newspaper the Mercury in 2020. I'm not commenting on the issue itself; I'm commenting on the reaction as to whether her comment was reasonable or not. Senator Chandler said:

You don't have to be a bigot to recognise the differences between the male and female sexes and understand why women's sports, single sex change rooms and toilets are important.

Now, there will be people who don't agree with that. I think it's a pretty reasonably held view, but this is what Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner said in relation to that. It determined that 'a reasonable person is likely to anticipate that a person who is a member of the LGBTIQ+ and gender-diverse community would be humiliated, intimidated, offended and insulted' by that comment. I use that example just to show where some of this bureaucratic reasonable opinion can lead us.

The definition of 'serious harm' in this is also broad. It's possible that a large amount of material could be captured as serious harm, and this can happen in areas such as elections—we're going to fight an election campaign next year, and I want that to be a battle of ideas; I don't want people banned from putting up on social media things that they believe to be true—and referendums—and we've been through this. It also includes—and I love this one—imminent harm to the economy or financial markets. I might quote our shadow minister for communications, who commented that 'imminent harm to the economy or financial markets' could cover just about all of the Greens' economic policies.

Digital platforms will face huge fines for failing to manage misinformation and disinformation, and they'll be incentivised to censor content. Platforms will self-censor. Given the broad definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', that censorship will capture legitimately held views of Australians.

The legislation endows the Minister for Communications with extraordinary powers. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations and hearings on his or her terms. A lot of people have invoked George Orwell in this place—the Ministry of Truth. It's a slippery slope to a place where we don't want to go. There are existing powers which now could be used under this bill to order ACMA to conduct specific investigations. The minister can order public hearings. The only constraint on that power is that it cannot relate to particular content posted on a digital community platform by a single end user identifiable by ACMA. I think the way this bill is drafted means that it's open to political abuse, and that's inconsistent with what our democratic values are and should be.

Also, different classes are treated unequally by this bill. Anything that is reasonably distributed for an academic purpose cannot be misinformation, but the same exemption does not apply to everyday Australians, so there's a bit of elitism creeping in there. The same exemption rules apply to anything that is distributed for an artistic or scientific purposes or things said for the purpose of parody or satire. If something appears in professional news content, it cannot be misinformation. But, if that same view or a contrary view were put outside professional news content—and, let's face it, a lot is in our discourse—it could be misinformation. This also applies to journalists, who would be protected in publishing within professional news content but not on their personal social media.

This is our view in parliament, but let's have a listen to what some other people have said on Labor's misinformation bill. There was a terrific contribution to the Senate inquiry from the Victorian Bar association, and I'm going to quote from that submission:

… 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 (who may rationally wish to avoid any risk of being labelled a purveyor of misinformation or disinformation).

…   …   …

The Bill's response to false information thus does not seem warranted. It may even be counter-productive when one recalls that the purveyors of so-called misinformation and disinformation are often part of relatively small online communities who are brought together by feelings of isolation and distrust of the State. The perceived silencing or targeting of these groups is unlikely to address the underlying social problems animating the dissemination of false information. It is widely accepted in liberal democratic societies that it is better to fight information with information and to attempt to persuade rather than coerce people towards positions grounded in evidence and fact.

That brings me back to what I said earlier. This is why our society has flourished and Western society has flourished—because we combat bad ideas with good ideas. Some people might think, 'Their idea is bad; my idea is good,' but that discourse is important. Rather than shut down the debate, let's win it. The societies that I talked about, such as eastern Europe in the latter part of the 20th century, just sought to shut it down. That's a dangerous way for society to go.

Some faith groups have had some things to say on this bill. 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.

The Australian Jewish Association submitted concerns:

… it is not the role of a government or regulatory authority to censor political speech or opinion, nor should the government or regulatory authority be the arbiter of truth.

There is overwhelming opposition to this bill, and that's with good reason. The problem with limiting free speech is: who gets to decide what the limits are and who it is applied to? This is what New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton said about the legislation:

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.

It's paternalism. It underestimates the capacity of Australians to make up their own minds.

In a democratic society, we might not always like the result that Australians come to. I didn't particularly like the result of the previous election in Australia, except for the seat of Nicholls, but it was a free and fair contest of ideas, and the Australian people made up their minds. Next year, the Australian people are going to make up their minds on how good they think this government has been, and people should be able to express that. Even in question time today, there was an attempt to have some legitimate opinions that were put forward ruled out of questions, and those were that this is the weakest and most incompetent government since the Whitlam government. That's a view that some people will have. It's a view that other people will disagree with. But let's have the debate. Let's have the discussion. Let's put the ideas out there, and the Australian people can make their minds up. I think this bill will restrict Australians' free expression, and I think it will diminish our democracy, and that is why I oppose the bill.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed a very important point in time right now for Western civilised democracies. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate President-elect Trump on a stunning victory in the American presidential election. There's still counting to go, of course, but it's very clear that it was a much stronger victory than what was anticipated. There is some suggestion that the Republicans will take the US Senate and perhaps even the US House of Representatives. Given that I've got this opportunity, I want to send out a congratulations to President-elect Trump and the broader Republican movement in America.

This morning I took up an invitation which was graciously offered by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the War Memorial to visit the redevelopment of that facility now under construction. Of course, it was a $500 million commitment by the former coalition government, and it's well on track for portions of that redevelopment to be open by Christmas and for other parts of that redevelopment to be ready for visitors by Christmas 2025. Being there, I was reflecting, as I always do when I'm in that building, on the 103,000 or so names that sit on the walls of remembrance. These are the names of men who laid down their lives, effectively giving up their futures for ours. What they were seeking to ensure is that Western democratic societies could thrive and that we could continue to govern societies on the basis of fundamental tenets of democracy. One, of course, importantly, is freedom of expression.

Others have used, probably, more colourful language than me, but this is a significant intervention. The member for Nicholls, before me, was referring to the 1949 George Orwell novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. He mentioned the ministry of truth. There were four ministries in the dystopian government of Oceania. There was the Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war; the Ministry of Truth, which, of course, concerned itself with lies; the Ministry of Love, which concerned itself with torture; and the Ministry of Plenty, which concerned itself with starvation. These contradictions weren't accidental, nor did they result from ordinary hypocrisy. They were the deliberate exercise of doublethink.

Granted, it's 2024, so 40 years after Orwell set his dystopian novel, but here we are in the Australian federal parliament discussing a bill referred to as the 'combating misinformation and disinformation bill', which would effectively establish in this country the ministry of truth. When I took the opportunity to look through what was proposed—and I should say, if it's not clear already, I categorically reject all aspects of this bill. The idea of politicians and members of the bureaucracy sitting in judgement of what is and is not true offends everything I can think of. When I got to this point in considering the bill, I literally shuddered. Embedded within the bill is the extraordinary power for the communications minister of the day to personally order misinformation investigations and hearings on terms that he or she chooses. Have a think about that. We would have the ministry of truth, we would have the minister for truth, and we would literally have—and I'm not even joking—the truth police. What point have we got to? We're literally debating whether we should give these extraordinary powers to a member of the government of the day.

Like the member for Nicholls, I didn't much like the outcome of the 2022 election, I've got to say. I enjoyed the 2019 election, and I'm sure, if there had been an election in 2020, I would have enjoyed that too, as I am enjoying the results of the US election occurring now. I didn't enjoy the results of the 2020 election in America; maybe that's what I've been thinking about. But, even if we were to have won that 2022 election, I would be offended by the idea that even a colleague of mine that I was close to would have these extraordinary powers.

You don't need to take my word for how these powers might be enacted. I'm just going to take us down memory lane for a moment—and apologies to my friend opposite, because some of these memories are uncomfortable. But, of course, one of the potential debates in this country where a misinformation or disinformation investigation might take place is at a future referendum, so let's turn our minds back to the most recent referendum. It was around the question of the Voice.

Like the member for Nicholls, I think the best antidote to a bad argument is a good one and the best way to disinfect lies is sunlight, facts and debate. Some, like me, prosecuted the argument—which I continue to believe—that the establishment of the Voice as proposed by those opposite would effectively divide this country by race, establishing two classes of Australian citizenship. I think it's an argument that was taken up by the Australian people and one which strongly motivated their choice to vote no comprehensively at the referendum.

During the course of our making that argument, many of those opposite referred more than once to that argument as mis- and disinformation, and, lo and behold, we now have the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill. So it doesn't require too much mental gymnastics to form the view that, had this legislation been in place during the course of the last referendum, there might well have been a declaration by the minister of the day that an investigation ought to be undertaken in relation to that argument that was being run by 'no' campaigners such as me.

I just wonder what would have happened at that point. Presumably, at my address in Mount Gambier, I would have got a knock on the door, and well-dressed officers would have asked me to come with them, and I would have been subjected to some sort of interview for expressing views that I reasonably held and—I reasonably put to you—many other Australians would have held. Where it would have gone from there I don't know, save and except that it would be a particularly brave individual who, having been subjected to that investigation, would continue to speak out. This is why the Victorian Bar Association has commented that this bill represents a troubling entry into potential self-censorship, because of course you're going to self-censor if you would otherwise potentially be subject to massive fines and investigative behaviour.

By dint of the fact that I'm a member of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party, you might not be surprised to learn that I'm not a huge fan of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. If I had been, I would have joined One Nation a long time ago. I didn't. I joined the Liberal Party, and, of course, that's because I believe in the tenets of our party and our 'we believe' statement. But I watched some rather chilling television last night. It was Andrew Bolt interviewing Pauline Hanson. Pauline, or Senator Hanson as I should perhaps refer to her, is a strong, forthright woman. She's not someone who anyone in Australia would describe as a shrinking violet. She was recently subject to court proceedings when a fellow senator sought to pursue her for alleged defamatory communications. I think it was a tweet. In the first instance that particular proceeding hasn't gone Senator Hanson's way. She was reduced to tears, and I thought to myself, 'I haven't seen Senator Hanson in the media recently, and this perhaps explains why.' This judgement was only weeks ago. And this is what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to silence voices in the civic square. That's not a strong society, that's a weak society.

A strong society provides a soapbox for any and all people to express their views as strongly as they are able in the civic square. I participate in civic debate regularly. I enjoy it, and I have no doubt those opposite think of my contributions what I sometimes think of their contributions—that is, I completely disagree. But never ever have I thought that the best way to combat an argument being made by those opposite is to get them shut down. No. The appropriate way to deal with what I might regard as ill-considered opinion is to debate against it, to highlight the potential hypocrisy, to indicate how that might lead to unintended consequences. It's very lazy to simply say: 'You can't say that. You just can't say that.' As an aside, I should say my favourite thing to say at that point is, 'Well, I just did.'

Under the laws that operate in this country right now if those opposite say to me, 'You can't say that,' or someone in the community more generally says, 'You just can't say that,' I can confidently say, 'Well, I just did.' The difficulty with this bill and the real harm in this proposal is that if it's passed—and it will, no doubt, given the numbers here and in the other place—and becomes law then when someone, potentially from the Ministry of Truth, the truth police, says to me, 'You can't say that,' I'm going to actually have to say, 'Yes, sir; I know.' When this bill is law, which we will rescind when we come into government, then that will be a sad day. Not because of my contributions, but because I won't be the only person saying that. There will be many others much more erudite than me, potentially stronger in their convictions than me and no doubt more intelligent than me making stronger and better arguments and they'll also be saying, 'Yes, sir; I know.' It is so wrong.

I'm pretty sure if we could poll the 103,000 or so Australian diggers whose names hang on the walls of the Australian War Memorial, they would agree with me that it is wrong and it's not what they gave up their futures for. So before we do this, before we make good on George Orwell's fictional dystopia, I just ask those opposite to think again. We don't need the Ministry of Truth or the— (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. George Orwell has had a bit of trot-out in this debate. I'm not surprised. He published Nineteen Eighty-Four 75 years ago, a novel about the control of people's lives through surveillance, propaganda and thought control. The technologies don't seems so outrageous in today's electronic world. Its underlying themes highlight the dangerous overreach that is represented in this government bill on combating misinformation and disinformation.

I can understand why the government feels as though it needs to make an attempt to condition the information that some people receive. My daughter once wrote an article in the Stock Journal in South Australia. She was writing a regular column at the time. She said that, given modern information platforms, consumers need to be able to identify and assess the value of the source of the information—whether there are vested interests, where the author sourced the material and whether it's well researched or relying on second-hand hearsay, second-rate primary material. I can only heartily agree.

The demise of traditional media in Australia is, as I have said in this place on a number of occasions, an underlying threat to our democracy. The funding sources that have paid for traditional media are quite quickly slipping away. They've all gone to the computer in our pocket—this thing here, our mobile devices. Real estate, cars, property, advertisements are all on the internet, hollowing out the funding streams for traditional newsrooms and journalists, who were expected to check sources for veracity, to clip things that were actually true. The replacements do not, and the question today is: do we legislate against misinformation, even in genuine error, or do we educate against it?

My greatest concern about this bill is that honestly held opinions of Australians would be able to be deemed misinformation, with digital platforms required to remove them in such cases. So what of religious beliefs? Can they be categorised as wrong or right? This external assessment of beliefs is an area of concern for the religious community. Can those assessments impact on the religious schools that are operating in the education system? The bill gives the government regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, extraordinary powers to regulate speech. I'm not questioning either the independence of the ACMA or its record, but I do make the point that its chair is appointed by the Governor-General at the behest of the government of the day. That opens up questions about independence and perhaps predilections and existing opinions that they may have.

More concerningly, the minister of the day will have the ability to exempt their preferred platforms, providing enormous power to control the news stream, to effectively control the message. This is where the reference to George Orwell stands out like a beacon of light—even the chant from Animal Farm, the decree of the ruling force summarised by the pigs: 'Four legs good, two legs bad.' It's a perfect example of one-line propaganda. Then, as the ruling forces adapted to the benefits of power and wealth, the chant was altered to, 'Four legs good, two legs better,' in a complete rejection of an earlier slogan, the important point being that the ruling power controls the message. Orwell said, 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.' I think that's a very telling quote—the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. While we all have concerns about some of the rubbish peddled on the online platforms—me as much as anyone else, I'd have to say—we should not risk muzzling the ability of the minority to question the ruling point of view.

Well-functioning democracies require open and vigorous questioning. It is the firewall which corrals corruption. Oppositions must be able to pursue questions which go to the heart of government management and honesty. This legislation risks that function. The legislation determines the minister will be able to decide whether the platforms have sufficiently censored the online posts to meet their interpretation of the truth. Inevitably governments will believe that they speak the truth and that their critics do not. The legislation will allow communications minister to personally order a misinformation investigation and misinformation hearings on terms of their choosing. The legislation will allow noble government officials to require the handover of information and documents related to information.

If the major platforms do not sufficiently censor misinformation—take it off their sites—they face large fines; in fact, up to five per cent of global turnover. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, that Google is a major player in this space. Google global turnover last year was US$307 billion, five per cent of which is US$23 billion. One could forgive Google if they became conservative about what they allow on their pages. In fact, they have to make a qualitative decision in front of the ACMA examination of their work.

It is worth reflecting that Galileo in the 15th century was tried and found guilty of heresy and was confined to house arrest for the final nine years of his life for opposing the scientific consensus of the day that the earth was at the celestial centre of the universe and all the planets were revolving around it. He questioned the ruling scientific general opinion of the day and gave up nine years of his life for it. 'As the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?' John Maynard Keynes is often given the benefit of being the first user of that clause but it is contested. In this changing world, the concept of challenging the established order can be deemed as misleading and thus illegal. Can a case be built against the status quo? How can a case be built against the status quo?

For instance, could the exposure of thalidomide or of the Khemlani loans affair happened if this legislation had been in place at the time? Could Australian whistleblowers have raised sufficient concern to have caught the attention of the public on issues such as PFAS contamination to prosecute their case? I am indebted to the member for Barker, who just spoke on the recent referendum in Australia. What constraints would have been put on at least one side of that referendum debate by the minister of the day being able to control which organisations can sell the message and which ones can't? Can they refer an investigation on the very things that the member for Barker raised? Are all of those concerns unknowns? It just feels like overreach on every level. Is it the baby or is it the bathwater? Me thinks, in this case, the bill goes too far.

This legislation is unparalleled in other like-minded countries. Places like the USA and the United Kingdom don't have laws that even come close to what the Albanese government is proposing. Like other MPs, I have received a high level of concern on this, and I can assure the public that the coalition is strongly opposed to it. There are so many other things that sit within it. I talked about the newsrooms of Australia and the fact that they are fewer and further between the journalists, the people who we would trust with the kind of information that we rely on. We were given an apology from the ABC again yesterday. The one news organisation that this parliament funds to give a true and factual correct record has been caught out yet again. There seems to be a conga line of apologies coming from the ABC. There have been people on this side of politics who have for a long time thought that the ABC is a biased organisation; it is no longer trustworthy. In fact, why would an organisation that had the most trustworthy news service in the world have to continually advertise that fact to us? Methinks that maybe they are not confident about their own claim.

We are reducing all the time. We don't have those radical news sources now. While on one hand the government argues that the contributions of those who are mischievous is causing a problem, it should also concede that there are people out there who have genuine concerns and are able to raise issues, using the megaphone of the electronic media, and bring this parliament's attention to the problems that exist within. Without that megaphone that they have at the moment, perhaps they can't move the case. So it's too dangerous for me. We are a free democracy. I think we need to find another way to crack this nut, if that's what is required. So I will be voting against this along with my colleagues, and I commend that case to the parliament.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in our democratic society. Yet here we are watching our freedom being openly threatened by Labor's misinformation bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. The federal Labor government wants to be the arbiter of the truth. It wants to tell every Australian what they can and can't post online if they disagree with it. So, if your thoughts, your views, don't align with the government, you could be taken off social media. You could be punished. That's not freedom. That's not how freedom of speech should work. We should be allowing disagreement and discord, because freedom of speech doesn't mean hurtful speech. Freedom of speech means you should be able to disagree in a respectful manner with what the government's position is—or anyone else's—without fear of being removed from a platform or not being able to communicate to your friends and family. Yet this misinformation bill goes directly to that.

Previously, this bill was brought to the House and withdrawn, last November, after a massive opposition from 20,000 Australians all voicing their outcry, all saying loud and clear, 'This isn't what we want.' Yet this Labor government isn't listening. Now the bill is back, with a few tweaks and adjustments, but none of us are fooled by the idea that anything has really changed. This bill clearly remains a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's masquerading as harmless while seeking to threaten our fundamental freedoms. This is not just a piece of legislation but a direct challenge to our democratic right of free speech.

This bill aims to control digital platforms, give powers to the communications minister and selectively allow government approved messaging online. It's scary stuff, and it will fundamentally change how Australians interact with each other on social media. It's not only a disgrace but an affront to the principles of a free society. This bill has no rightful place in Australia. The coalition stands in strong opposition to it, and a coalition government will repeal it.

This bill threatens digital platforms with massive fines if they fail to pull down what the government considers to be misinformation. What do you think most platforms will be forced to do if they're given a choice between protecting free speech in Australia and being fined millions of dollars? It's obvious. If there's even the slightest possibility that any content could be regarded as misinformation by the government, the platforms will shut it down. This will have a chilling effect on free speech online throughout our country.

Imagine posting your honest opinion on a current event, something you feel passionate about, only for it to be deleted by the tech overlords, who are overseen by someone somewhere throughout the country, because the Australian government might not like it. Or consider that you want to share your perspective or maybe even challenge an opinion but you hold back because you're worried about being labelled as a spreader of misinformation. So your voice is silenced before you even try to speak.

My own social media page is one of the places where I go to hear from people throughout the electorate and the country so I can have a finger on the pulse and hear from the people on the ground on the important issues in our community. I get to hear all sorts of opinions and thoughts. Some are great, some not so. I get free advice. But it is a place of free debate and free speech. Even when we disagree, I go out of my way to either meet with the people that have put these comments up or engage with them on my platform. I allow everyone to be involved in this debate because that's a part of free speech. Much of this valuable community engagement would simply disappear if this bill were successful. It aims to clamp down on the free expression of Australians.

So here we are facing a bill with definitions so broad they are nothing but invitations for an abuse of power under the vague term 'misinformation'. This bill requires no burden of proof to show intent to mislead or maliciousness. Ordinary Australians expressing genuine opinions will find themselves in the crosshairs of censorship. Consider what this bill defines as 'serious harm'. This term stretches to cover everyday conversations around elections, referendums, public health and the economy. Imagine posting a perspective about the economy which is not favoured by the government of the day. Under this bill, your voice could be silenced because it could be considered seriously harmful for not toeing the government line. Or how about reposting a news story during election time that seems damaging to the current government? With one stroke, your story could vanish because it's considered seriously harmful.

The best news for the government is that the dirty work of censorship can be outsourced to big tech, which will be forced to decipher what 'misinformation' means to the Australian government of the day to avoid financial penalties. But it doesn't stop there. This bill aims to do more than just silence genuine debate. It grants extraordinary powers to the communications minister, who would begin dictating what is true and false online. The minister could initiate investigations and call for hearings all based on the minister's personal view of misinformation. The idea that a politician could order investigations into opinions they don't agree with online would be laughable if it weren't so serious and imminent. It has absolutely no place in our democracy. This is not just an oversight; it's a massive overreach.

The bill further empowers the ACMA with information-gathering capabilities, forcing platforms to turn over documents under threat of penalties. These are extraordinary new powers for the communications minister and the department. Is it any wonder, then, that the Labor government is attempting to ram this bill through parliament? The public were given just seven days to voice their concerns. The government's haste in pushing this bill through with minimal public consultation is offensive to the Australian people and is undemocratic.

Of course, none of us are surprised that the government's allies who toe the party line will be spared the heavy hand of censorship. This bill identifies groups of people who will come under its protective umbrella, and they are so-called experts, whose opinions are apparently more reliable than those held by the Australian people. Academics, scientists, comedians and so-called professional news networks will get an official exemption to post what they like without fear of censorship. Heaven forbid any Australian comments on one of their posts. Imagine getting into an argument with an academic online only to be swiftly censored, blacklisted, while they continue to enjoy their public platform or disagreeing with the way a comedian jokes about a subject only to be silenced because everything they are saying is satire and above any kind of criticism. How about challenging a story broadcast by mainstream media? If you'd dare to question the way they report, you'd be on a fast track to cancellation while the government approved message remained untouchable.

This is quite relevant right now when not even a month ago Heston Russell was in court with the ABC, where they doctored, misled and lied to the Australian people around what happened in Afghanistan. They were found to be guilty. He would be hauled over the coals with this bill. If he challenged that, if veterans around the country challenged this online, which is how it started, they would all be censored. They would be told, 'No, you can't comment on this, because the government says this is the truth and only the media and other protected groups are allowed to post what they like.'

Even podcasters need to ensure their script complies with the ministry of communications' guidelines or face being deplatformed. The minister may also exempt specific platforms from the operation of the bill so that the platforms can crack down, and the most ruthless and the most reliable in doing the minister's bidding will be rewarded with perks and benefits. This legislation will openly reward government approved speech while penalising free speech. It violates the principle of equality under the law, where your right to speak freely is regarded as less valuable than someone with a different job title to you. Suddenly we're looking at a two-tier system in freedom of expression where the privileged few are exempt from the same rules that will bind the mouths of ordinary Australians. Unequal treatment before the law is just as undemocratic as it is un-Australian.

It's not just politicians who are raising the alarm. Numerous legal experts have warned us about the grave dangers to free speech presented in this bill. New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton 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 …

He goes on to say that this bill:

… is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues so any debate that does occur accords with the views of a group of government-appointed bureaucrats.

The Victorian Bar has said something similar. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have commented.

This is a bad bill. Residents throughout Townsville, around the country and in all of our electorates have been talking about how bad this bill is. One person from Deeragun, in Townsville, told me:

The contents of this Bill essentially give the power of truth to whichever political party is in power. This is yet another attempt by Politicians and Bureaucrats to destroy personal freedoms for every Australian.

A veteran wrote to me and said:

As you know, Australians are a nation of sportsmen and we like a bit of banter between the teams … and many blokes like us veterans are completely blown away by the audacity of the Labor Party to feel that they have the God given right not to allow us to express our opinions.

Another constituent called my office and asked if he was allowed to post his opinions online about the Queensland state election or if there would be any penalties for saying the wrong thing.

Having served in the Australian Defence Force, with time in Afghanistan—a place still under the grip of an iron-fisted authoritarian regime that crushes even the slightest whisper of dissent—I find this bill utterly disrespectful. I find it un-Australian. We are facing a similar threat here to our freedom of speech, and I would urge all in this place to vote against it. Freedom of speech is not just about speaking; it's about being heard without having fear of being silenced. The coalition's commitment is to ensure that free speech remains free. Failing to reject this bill puts our democratic society in jeopardy.

This is not just legislation; it's a gag order on democracy itself. The coalition will strongly oppose this outrageous bill, and we will defend the right of every Australian to speak, debate and dissent. In a free exchange of ideas lies our strength as a society, and we are determined to protect it. This is a bad bill. This is an attack on your free speech. This is an attack on every Australian. I urge people listening at home today as the debate goes on to contact your MPs. Contact them and tell them that you want your free speech—you don't want a government, a minister of truth, someone in parliament, telling you how to think and how to feel and what you can and can't say. This is an attack on your liberties, and we oppose it. The coalition opposes it because freedom of speech is a part of our democratic values and we must fight to protect it.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Herbert on a very fine contribution to this debate. There's not a single thing in what he had to say that I would disagree with. This is an appalling attack by a government that came to the last election promising openness and transparency, promising to let the sunshine in, and yet what we've seen over the past 2½ years is completely the opposite.

I've heard many of the contributions from those opposite, saying, 'This is really not much of a concern—we're dealing with misinformation and disinformation.' Let me just remind the House that it's usually those who are on the wrong side of the argument that shout 'misinformation' or 'disinformation'. It's those who are losing the argument that resort to name-calling and epithets, because they know they've lost the argument and can't win it on the facts. We've just seen that in the Queensland state election. Much as I disagree with what was done and said in many of those campaigns, and in the campaign more generally, that is the beauty of democracy: you can say things that people disagree with. That is what Western civilisation is built on. That's what our society and our culture are built on. There's a free exchange of ideas in a contested environment. Where somebody posits a proposition or says something, you have the right to say, 'I disagree with you for these reasons.' That's why we have the vibrant society and democracy that we have today.

Sadly, there are those in this place, on the government benches at the moment, who want to stifle that debate. The reality of the situation is that, in many cases, their ideological position in the world doesn't accord with the facts and they don't know how to deal with that, because they're marooned on this rock of ideology. Heaven forbid that the facts would ever get in the way! Let me give you an example that I came across today.

It has been revealed that the bureau of meteorology in the United Kingdom stands accused, after a freedom-of-information request, of manufacturing temperature records for over 103 locations where they have no temperature-monitoring equipment. At various times in this place we have had a discussion about the homogenisation policies that our Bureau of Meteorology uses, and the veracity or otherwise of those. Anybody on this side that stands up and questions those is accused of misinformation, disinformation, climate denial or whatever the case may be, but the reality is that those on the left who have a certain view of the world don't want to actually deal with the facts. We've seen the situation of Professor Peter Ridd at James Cook University and what he had to go through by standing on his principles and values and stating the facts. That finished up in a court case. It's not that this legislation is actually required, because those on the left are already trying to muzzle those that disagree with them and seek to point out the reality of what's going on. Those on the Left and those on the government benches do not like that. They take exception to it.

We've recently seen the COVID report handed down. During COVID, there was much commentary on various platforms and social media platforms that I disagreed with, and I think the COVID report revealed that much of that was incorrect. Yet there was also much that was commentated on during that period that was correct, and the COVID report bore that out, yet the people that said that during that period were vilified and treated as pariahs.

We now have a situation in this House where we're discussing a piece of legislation that will only reinforce the ability of those on the Left and those currently in government to further muzzle debate and to use the full apparatus of state to achieve that. That is not what this country was built on, as the member for Herbert quite rightly pointed out. I too have had many emails to my office on this issue. I'll say that zero are in support of it, because Australians out there recognise the danger of this piece of legislation. It's an appalling and chilling attack on our free speech and our ability to have a sensible public debate on contested issues. Just as we have a contested debate on a piece of legislation before this House, we should also be able to have a contested debate out in the public sphere, whether it be on social media, in a pub, in a club or on an online debating forum—whatever the case may be.

Where I will draw the line is—as I'm sure Deputy Speaker Buchholz saw during the recent state election campaign—when people start to attack other people personally and vilify them. What I'm finding in the public debate is not issues with free speech or the contesting of ideas; what I find increasingly troubling in the debate in the public sphere is the willingness, particularly of the Left of politics, to resort to demonising and seeking to tear down and destroy one's character when they've lost an argument or they don't believe they can win the argument.

I got taught in high-school debating that, if you start attacking your opponents personally, you can sit down because you've lost the argument. But this bill before us will achieve exactly what I'm concerned about—that is, it will result in the diminishing of the quality of public debate because the people in our community who have a different view that is not approved by the government or some other government body of the day can and, I suspect, will be silenced. As I've outlined in a number of examples, we've seen that already in evidence, even without the provision of this legislation.

I find it interesting that, under this bill, academics, scientists and artists are exempted from the bill but not everyday Australians. Why not? Why do we need this legislation? Give me an example of why we need this legislation. There is no example of why we need this legislation. It is only coming into place because the government wants to further control and be involved in people's lives. I'll say to anybody listening to this debate this evening, be very afraid when the government says: 'We're here to help. We'll make your lives better.'

I heard the member for Newcastle speaking earlier, and her remarks on this bill. She was talking about her committee and the work she's doing on that committee and made a reference to the issue of abuse et cetera online of children. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, you would have seen the sad case of a young lady in Queensland who took her own life earlier this week as a result of bullying and vilification. And yet what we see is this government introducing this bill, which seeks to muzzle everyday Australians, but they refuse to do anything about age verification or dealing with any of the issues of online bullying. And don't for a minute pretend that this bill is about online bullying. It's not. That is a completely different issue that's not covered by this bill.

If the government is genuinely concerned about dealing with issues of online bullying and age verification for children online so that they're not being exposed to harmful material—on this side of the House we've already put up a proposition for that, which the government is yet to respond to or to do anything with—then go ahead and do it. That is far more important and far more relevant today than this bill, which seeks to muzzle free speech and reduce the rights and the freedoms that we have fought for so hard in this country over the past couple of hundred years.

And it's not only in this country, it's across the world. Western culture, as I said earlier, is built on the notion of free speech and contested ideas. The idea that a communications minister, a minister of state, can personally order a misinformation investigation or misinformation hearings on the terms of their choosing is an extraordinary power. I think I'd be in safe territory in saying that is an unprecedented power for a minister of state to have directly given to them, and that's exactly what this bill proposes. So if somebody out in the public says something that the minister disagrees with or the government of the day disagrees with, they can put that person through the ringer through a misinformation inquiry or hearing. Honestly, the Gestapo would be proud of that. Fidel Castro's Cuba would be proud of that. There are many other countries that have an enormously poor track record in this space of human rights and basic human freedoms who would be proud of what this bill is potentially going to do.

The breadth of the definitions in this bill are extraordinary. The term 'serious harm' is being applied to elections and referendums. What would have happened if this bill were in place during the Voice referendum? Would you have heard both sides of the argument? I suspect not, because it was frequently a cry from the rooftop from those opposite and from the proponents of the Voice that those who were prosecuting the argument for the 'no' vote were spreading misinformation and disinformation. And yet the Australian people spoke with their voice, and roughly 60 per cent of the Australian people voted no—one of the highest votes in a referendum in the history of this country.

This bill is an absolute disgrace, an abject failure of governance and a threat to the democracy that this country is proud of and has been built on for the last 120-odd years. We should oppose this with every fibre of our being, because it will not make this country a better place; it will make it a worse place, not just for this current generation but for the generations to come. I oppose this bill with every fibre of my being.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join the consistent calls of my colleagues in comprehensively condemning and rejecting this legislation that the government has put forward, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. Obviously, I indicate that I don't support the bill being read a second time. This might be the worst piece of legislation that I've ever made a contribution on in my six years as a member of this chamber, and that's saying something, because this government has had some other shockers. But never have we had one that is really about undermining the fundamentals of this very building that we're in and the democracy that we, of course, are so honoured to participate in.

To me, it is completely objectionable in what I think is the most vibrant democracy on the planet, Australia. I think we have excellent free and fair elections. We have robust contests for elected office—the federal parliament, state parliaments and local government. I'm certainly someone who likes to fight as hard as I possibly can, but I always accept the result and the verdict of the people, I believe the people always get it right, and, of course, whenever the next opportunity comes along to contest an election or to put forward a new policy proposition, we again engage in a spirited, robust public debate which is completely grounded in the foundation of us having the right to free speech in this country and there being no mechanism, particularly not one run by any government, to impinge on that.

My first point would be that I actually suspect that this legislation isn't even constitutional. If it passes the parliament, which I hope it doesn't, I fully expect it to be before the High Court pretty rapidly. I think that it is wrong for the parliament to be considering passage of legislation that has any risk of falling foul of the Constitution. I would very rarely criticise the great Menzies government, but they were indeed wrong to legislate the illegalisation of the Communist Party, and that was legislation that was struck down by the High Court. This is legislation that falls in a very similar category. If this parliament is foolish enough to pass it, I strongly hope that our High Court, as an important check and balance to the legislative branch of our government and, indeed, as guardians of our Constitution, will toss it out. It most surely falls foul of precedents they've already established in previous cases, around the implicit right to free speech that exists within our Constitution. In my view, beyond question, this legislation—every element of it, from its principle down to some of its appalling specific characteristics—is completely at odds with that great fundamental right that we have in this nation, in our democracy, to free speech.

Indeed, I find that it adds insult to injury that we're debating this bill so close to 11 November, that solemn date when we commemorate and reflect on the sacrifice of so many Australians in the First World War—but now, of course, Remembrance Day is about the sacrifice of our soldiers in all conflicts, who, of course, have often sacrificed their lives and certainly have sacrificed their youth, their innocence and what they could have done in their early years rather than join and serve our nation and fight in wars for freedoms like our freedom of speech. In a few days, at 11 am on 11 November, we will all pause to reflect on the sacrifice that they've made.

Apart from reflecting on their sacrifice, what we as members of this chamber can do is a vote down a bill that betrays that sacrifice and that effectively says we as a parliament, despite the fact that more than 100,000 Australians have lost their lives in conflicts of good versus evil and, beyond question, protecting democracy and protecting freedom against dictatorship and tyranny, are considering passing legislation that belongs in an autocracy. It belongs in a dictatorship. It belongs in eras like the Third Reich in Nazi Germany or many of the other abhorrent and appalling regimes that have existed that we have stood up against throughout the history of our nation. It is truly appalling that we are even considering this legislation.

'Misinformation' and 'disinformation' are the sorts of labels you expect to read about in fictitious novels about big government controlling the citizenry. This is not even a thinly veiled attempt, in my view, to conceal the fact that we have a government that is seeking to pass legislation to proudly restrict the freedom of citizens of this country to express themselves and to say what they want about issues of the day, things they feel strongly about, things they feel passionately about. I very much have diametrically opposed views to a range of opinions that are put out there particularly in social media. I have the right in this great, free society, with my right of free speech that every other Australian has, to contest things I think are inaccurate or wrong or matters that I disagree with.

I have great faith in the power of argument. I have great faith that, if someone is making a point that I believe is incorrect or that many of us believe is incorrect, particularly in the context of political debate, election campaigns and arguing between different propositions or proposals for our country, a strong argument will defeat a weak argument and/or inaccurate argument. I think, by and large, that actually happens. When I think about all of the great contests that we've had in the public debate through the history of this great democracy, I can't think of many examples where the best argument hasn't defeated an inaccurate argument. I have no fear—as all of us in the coalition have no fear—even if people are engaging in misinformation and disinformation through online platforms and anywhere else in our society. A good-quality constructed argument against that should have no fear of winning the day, whatever the contest might be.

I am suspicious about the timing of this bill. I am very suspicious that the government wants to sit late and get this through the parliament. I can see it probably will pass the House of Representatives, disappointingly, because the government controls this chamber. I don't say it that often, but thank God we have a Senate—because at least that is a chamber where I can hold out hope that even people that we do not tend to be on the same side of an argument with, generally speaking, on the political left might hold some of the same fears that we in the coalition do about government regulating free speech in this country. But we are sitting late to force this debate to conclude. There are rumours that this parliament might not meet again after the November sittings, and I have significant concerns that the reason this is being raced through the chamber now to get it to the Senate so the government, they hope, can pass it through the Senate is for this legislation to be in place before the next federal election. That is deeply concerning, even if the High Court strikes this sort of legislation down, and I hope if this bill were to pass that will occur. I also don't know what damage may occur to our democracy in the meantime, particularly if there is an election held under this legislation, or what that will mean and what impact that will have on the rights that we absolutely fundamentally have to speak freely in political debate.

I'm from the state of South Australia. We have electoral laws for state elections that are nowhere near as bad as this, but they're still pretty curious. They're called the truth-in-advertising laws. There are indeed proposals from the government on top of this terrible legislation to also legislate a similar regime for federal elections. As someone who has participated in the campaign hierarchy of a number of state elections in South Australia, they absolutely lead to and achieve the opposite of what they sound like they're meant to be achieving. It turns into a situation where the legislation is weaponised by political opponents. We've certainly received evidence from the Australian Electoral Commissioner himself during the electoral matters inquiry into these truth-in-advertising laws saying: 'Please don't make me some kind of arbiter over truth. I want to be an independent officer that runs elections. If you come to me and say, "Hey, that candidate has put this thing out, and it's wrong, and you need to determine that it's wrong," that compromises my independence, and it obviously turns me into a participant in a political contest when I am meant to be and want to be the independent arbiter.'

This is what's all before us if this legislation passes. This of course will be weaponised. We will have situations in political contests and a whole range of other parts of civil society—regrettably, this applies way beyond just political debate, but it's the first and best example of why we should fear it and defeat it—where we have open lawfare becoming a part of political debate and political contest in this country. It'll all be about lawyers at 20 paces. Every time someone has something to say about what they'll do if they're elected or what their opponent might do if their opponent wins, it'll all be about racing off to court and having a dispute about it. Through this legislation, it'll be about when we post things on online platforms and what and how pressure is brought to bear to try and censor people's arguments and legitimate and fair rights to engage in political contest and political argument. Again, I have confidence that the High Court won't let legislation like this ever get that far, but I also make the point that there'll be a period of time until the High Court deals with all of those matters that is at risk of having serious consequences to our democracy.

The worst part that I identify in this legislation, on top of the appallingness of the principle, is the powers it gives to the executive government and the powers it gives to the minister and agencies that report to the minister. Again, we have this situation where misinformation and disinformation are totally contestable. Anyone can concoct a claim that something is misinformation or disinformation. In this legislation, we have a situation where the minister has these powers to direct inquiries and investigations. Of course, ministers are from the political class. They are political participants. They are in the government that is campaigning against an opposition. They are compromised and have a bias with these powers to use them in ways that might bring about political advantage to them or political disadvantage to their opponents.

I could go on and on about a whole range of other significant issues with the specifics of the legislation, but, whilst they're important and they make the argument about why there are so many problems with this proposal, beyond that, the most important thing is that fundamentally this is an assault on the cherished right of free speech that all Australians have and enjoy. More than 100,000 Australians have died to secure and ensure that that right is enduring for us into perpetuity. I strongly urge this chamber to reflect on the principle that we would be embarking upon if we made a decision to legislate something that is so grotesquely abhorrent and offensive to the values that, until this legislation was brought before this parliament, I believed were held in ubiquity by every single member of this chamber. I urge that the second reading be defeated.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The principle of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should underpin everything we do here. The fact that you sit here in the centre of this chamber, Deputy Speaker Vasta, from an elevated position, with a degree of authority, indicates that you are not here to be the arbiter of one side or the other but that you are to represent a fair and honest debate without fear or favour. That is a role that you, personally, take very seriously. I know you do, as do most of our deputy speakers.

The flags that adorn this chamber are representative of our great and free country that many men and women have given their lives for in one way or another. Some may not have directly died in defence of that democracy, but they have given their lives in the pursuit of that democratic power and that principle that we have as a country. It's something that is near and dear to my heart.

I believe in protecting our hard-fought freedoms, and the right to free speech is one of our most cherished. It's not a freedom that we've won lightly. It stands on the sacrifices of generations of men and women who have given everything to protect it. They stood up, unwavering, against those who would strip it away from us. Their courage has afforded us the right to live, to think and to speak freely. It's our duty to honour their legacy, this principle, and to fiercely protect these rights for the generations who follow. We cannot yield. We cannot allow a backwards step. The consequences would be deeply troubling for a nation that prides itself on that democracy and those principles.

For those of us who hold freedom of speech dear, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is deeply troubling at best. It represents a line that we cannot, as a nation, afford to cross. It is a bill that, simply, is an attack on our right to speak freely and to think freely. It's an attack on our right to hear the voices of our fellow Australians and to engage in ideas even when they're uncomfortable and even when they're controversial. It's an attack on our right to make informed choices for ourselves.

The government is proposing that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, be granted sweeping powers to oversee or to penalise digital platforms. ACMA would be authorised to decide if digital platforms have taken 'adequate steps' to control misinformation and disinformation. If a platform's actions are deemed inadequate, they could face significant fines of up to five per cent of their global revenue. Imagine the pressure that this would place on companies, effectively forcing them to police or to censor or to change what Australians can say online simply to avoid financial ruin. This power is a slippery slope. To avoid punishment, platforms are likely to overcorrect—to silence far more of the content than is necessary in order to comply. When we restrict speech to such a degree, we deny Australians the right to voice their views freely.

One of the fundamental issues here is the broad and vague language around what constitutes misinformation. Under this bill, misinformation doesn't have to be deliberately false or malicious. It simply has to be reasonably verifiable as misleading and potentially able to cause serious harm. But serious harm, in itself, is undefined in any meaningful way.

The reason robust societies protect the open exchange of ideas is important. History has shown us that censoring opinions or dismissing them as harmful ends badly for a society. It leads to a climate of fear, to a reluctance to share ideas and, ultimately, to a society that is less capable of growth or resilience.

In this digital age Australians aren't just sharing photos or news. They're exchanging ideas to critique the decisions of those in power and to stand up for what they believe in. This bill risks silencing all of that. It's telling Australians, 'You can speak, but only if you toe the government line and you say what we like.'

The impact of this bill extends far beyond the online world. Consider the communications minister's power to initiate misinformation investigations or hearings under this bill. The minister would have the authority to direct ACMA to investigate digital platforms or order public hearings. The only restriction on this power is that it cannot be directed at a single end user. Beyond that, the minister can decide the terms of those investigations. This is a sweeping and deeply concerning power, one that could be misused to influence debate or silence critics under the guise of controlling so-called misinformation.

If that isn't enough cause for concern, the bill includes further exemptions that highlight a double standard. Academics, scientists, artists and even satirical commentary are all protected under this legislation, but ordinary Australians aren't. That is a double standard that I cannot live with. In other words, the government's saying those who are deemed to be professionals or who create content within approved spheres are allowed freedom of speech. However the rest of us are expected to stay within the bounds of the government's deemed definition of 'safe'. This distinction is one that fundamentally undermines the principle of equal free speech for all Australians, irrespective of their position in society.

It doesn't end there. Professional news content produced by mainstream media is also exempt from this legislation. So if a major newspaper publishes an article with a particular viewpoint, it is safe from being labelled as misinformation. But if ordinary Australians do the same, then it could be considered under this bill. It's not fair. This two-tiered system essentially suggests that mainstream media is more credible than the voices of Australians. That's not right. This puts professional journalists in a separate category—many of us may consider they are already—shielding them from the rules that could restrict their content on personal platforms. But it does not protect the average Australian sharing the same information. This is an approach that does not respect Australians, their intelligence or their right to engage in a variety of opinions.

This bill also extends ACMA's powers significantly, allowing it to demand documents and information from individuals associated with digital platforms. The penalties for failing to comply are harsh. The powers that cast a wide net will create a culture of fear that discourages robust and honest discussion.

My key responsibility in this place is to fiercely, honestly and succinctly represent the views of those living across my electorate. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Therefore it's no surprise that the response to this bill in my electorate has been swift and significant. I've received phone calls and emails. People have stopped me in the street. People are angry.

Here's what some of them have said. Laszlo Faludi from Ulverston said:

As a swing voter, the threat to democracy posed by this bill is alarming. I value my freedom to post online and fear that this legislation will severely restrict it. The threat to freedom of speech, the looming censorship, and the increased powers of the government, particularly the ACMA, are issues that cannot be ignored. The potential consequences of this bill on public discourse and the open exchange of ideas are troubling.

Lynn Dunhan from Spreyton said:

It is essential that we protect our democratic values and ensure that legitimate concerns and differing opinions are not silenced by government intervention.

I agree with you, Lynn.

Stuart Greig from Penguin told me:

I have even less faith in ACMA's ability to oversee such powers in a balanced manner than I do in the sincerity of the proponents.

I'm with you, Stuart, on that one. He went on to say:

Australia does not need a Ministry of Truth—

well said—

particularly not one staffed by Canberra ideologues. It is always disappointing when government believes the answer lies in more legislation and regulation. Repealing legislation or reducing government interference is never an option apparently.

Paul Jacques from Wynyard said:

The broad definitions of misinformation and serious harm, coupled with severe penalties for non-compliance, are likely to result in over-censorship on digital platforms.

Wayne Spradbury from Trial Harbour said:

I urge you to reconsider the impact of this bill on our democracy and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. It is essential that any measures to combat misinformation and disinformation are balanced, transparent, and respectful of individual liberties.

Tony Downey from Leith said:

The definitions of misinformation and serious harm in this bill are overly broad and vague, leading to a high risk of over-censorship.

Anne Brewer from Ulverstone simply said:

Isn't this what China does?

I think you're onto something, Anne.

That list goes on—lists of legitimate complaints and concerns. People are deeply troubled and angry. This government doesn't seem to get that. This is a bill, at its core, that is supposed to be about preventing harm. It's about control. It's about so-called standards. The good thing about standards is there are so many standards to choose from. Which one do we choose? The Albanese government wants to decide what Australians can see, what they can say and, ultimately, what they can think. This approach is fundamentally at odds with the values of free and open democracy. Australia does not need a government approved version of the truth. We need a population equipped with critical thinking skills, a society that encourages open debate and a culture that allows its people to question authority without fear.

This bill is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that can't be solved through censorship. Australians deserve to be heard. Australians deserve to hear from each other. Australians don't deserve to be silenced. We can't silence anybody; it hurts all. It takes away our chance for debate, to question and to grow. Speaker, if you haven't gleaned it already, my position's fairly clear. The coalition's position is fairly clear. The voices of my electorate are very clear. I vigorously oppose this bill and the Albanese government's attempt to tell Australians what they can and cannot say. Freedom of speech is not just a right. It is at the foundation of our country, and we must hold it dear.

For 20 years of my life, I held a rifle in defence of this country, under that flag that I talked about earlier. I was in a corps—the Royal Australian Corps of Signals. On our badge is Mercury, the Roman runner of the gods. In his hand, he has the caduceus, intertwined with two serpents. Those serpents and that caduceus indicate truth. We are required in the military, in the signal corps, to deliver the truth irrespective of the content. That person that receives that message might not like the content, but the validity of that content is important. If we go changing that, if we go censoring that and if we go changing the context of that, then people die. I'm very fearful as I stand here, should this bill look anywhere near passing, that our democracy will die with it. I condemn this bill.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge the member for Braddon and that outstanding speech that he gave. I want to acknowledge the service that he has given our country, as well as all members in this House that have worn the uniform of the ADF. The member for Braddon has so succinctly put the importance of fighting this bill and has linked it back to the service that he's provided, particularly in the signals corps. The signal corps is all about communication, as he just indicated, and he spoke about the badge that he wore on his hat and the importance of truth. I think that that's a lesson that everybody in this chamber can really take some notice of today.

I share the member for Braddon's disgust in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and I want to take a few moments now to talk about my concerns. We as members of this place are in a privileged position. We're in a very wealthy country. We have a lot of freedoms, but, as they say, freedom ain't free. I'm trying to get my bearings here—help me out, member for Braddon—but there are 103,000 men and women just down the road who we've acknowledged paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, as 27 million Australians. Freedom is not free. They fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can stand up and speak our mind.

I may not like what the member for North Sydney says, but I'll defend her right to say it. I may not like what the member for Scullin says—I probably won't; that's a pretty safe bet—but I will defend his right to say it. What really concerns me about this bill is this undercurrent that the government knows best, because government will ultimately be the arbiter as to what is truth, or what they perceive to be truth, and what they perceive to be fiction.

Like the member for Braddon, I'm going to spend a few moments reading through some of the submissions and the hundreds and hundreds of emails and messages that I've received. I don't remember too many other bills that have come before this place that have inspired such a visceral response from my constituents. Very few of them have been supportive.

As Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World, 'Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.' For 124 years, Australia has been the envy of the world, a beacon for freedom and a bastion of democracy and prosperity, but the decisions that we make in this place either increase or inhibit those freedoms. This legislation puts those very freedoms at risk. I think this bill that we're debating, the so-called combatting misinformation and disinformation bill, is one of the most flawed pieces of legislation that I have had to debate in my eight years in this place.

Last year, the government was forced into a humiliating backdown after Australians overwhelmingly rejected the bill. More than 20,000 submissions and comments were made by Australians in opposition to this bill. I can't remember having seen that sort of response from Australians. Australians tend to say, 'She'll be right, mate.' Unfortunately, I don't think Australians really get too uptight as much as I'd like them to. But, on this bill, they have certainly seen the red flags and they've been motivated.

Instead of listening to the Australian people and binning the bill, Labor have come back with this second iteration, and it is a shocker. This bill is like putting lipstick on a pig. This new version of the bill gives the regulator, ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, powers to require digital platforms that take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. They will determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to five per cent of the company's global turnover. Do you reckon that's going to make the platforms sit up and take notice? You bet it will.

No-one disputes that misinformation and disinformation pose threats to social cohesion and democratic resilience. I am the deputy chair of the PJCIS and the deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee. No-one knows that better than I do, perhaps with the exception of the member for Braddon. I know the important role that information warfare plays in national security and our offensive and defensive capabilities. We know that our competitors and organised crime gangs are using AI and online platforms to sow discord, spread disinformation, and impact on the results of elections. We've seen that just today, with reports about Russia trying to influence the outcome of the presidential elections today. We've seen leaked reports from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service of the Chinese Communist Party trying to influence the last two federal elections in Canada. This is not make-believe stuff. This is happening in the world today, as we speak. We in Australia would be very naive if we thought that it wasn't happening here. It's happening in the States, it's happening in Canada and you'd better believe it's also happening here.

With that caution, widescale public censorship cannot be the solution. As the former deputy chief health officer Professor Nick Coatsworth said:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse … to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate.

As the Victorian Bar Association put it, 'It is better to fight information with information and to attempt to persuade, rather than to coerce people.' What we're talking about in this legislation isn't about defence. It inhibits dialogue and it is dystopian. It's the stuff of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's Huxley's Brave New World. We're talking about the age of Big Brother, the age of the thought police, a government-run ministry of truth determining what is real and what is not. As Huxley wrote, 'Reality cannot be ignored, except at a price.'

Which reality will bureaucrats and this Labor government decide is misinformation? If I attest that Israel has the right to defend its very existence against a network of terror regimes, will I be cancelled? If I argue that nuclear energy will secure cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy long into the future, will I be hauled before Labor's ministry of truth? If the decisions and the politics of this government are any guide, then these kinds of genuinely held beliefs and empirical truths would be captured under the misinformation laws. Huxley, again, said, 'Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.' The censorship of free speech, whether fact or fiction, is fundamentally wrong.

As I said, very few proposals from the federal government have raised the ire and concern of everyday Australians. I spoke earlier about some of the concerns that my constituents have raised with me. Lynda from Peachester told me:

I am worried about the impact this bill will have on my freedom to post online, my freedom of speech, and the threat of censorship.

Marilyn from Currimundi wrote:

This bill poses a serious threat to democracy, freedom of speech, and grants excessive powers to the government.

As Jacob from Landsborough said:

This bill is nothing less than an assault on the free speech of everyday Australians.

And, as Carol from Little Mountain put so well:

It is crucial that we protect the open exchange of ideas and opinions, even those that may be controversial or unpopular.

The Australian people have had their say. They want the parliament to bin this bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, if, after all of that, you're still not convinced—and I reckon you are—then let me explain why this legislation is so flawed. The legislation imposes big fines on digital platforms who don't comply with the relevant rules, codes or standards, but that is a decision made by ACMA. I am absolutely no fan of social media platforms. I have been taking them on since 2016, ever since the death of Dolly Everett. They've failed to keep kids safe online. They've failed to protect our most vulnerable. They've failed to show the transparency and accountability that Australians and Australian businesses expect and demand. But this legislation does nothing more than to incentivise overregulation and overcensorship online. In order to avoid the risk of fines, it would make sense for digital platforms to censor content which ACMA may see as misinformation or disinformation. In so doing, it is likely that the platforms will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians so that they don't cop those big fines—five per cent of their global annual turnover. Do you reckon they're going to be a bit gun-shy? Worse still, the minister has the power to exclude any platform from these obligations, so a digital site that supports the government could be excluded as a result. Once again, this Labor government shows that it's owned lock, stock and barrel by big tech and the big end of town.

One of the most contentious elements of the legislation is the vagueness in some of the key definitions, as the member for Braddon so eloquently put in his speech. Most concerning is the broad definition of 'misinformation'. As it stands, this definition captures the opinions of Australians which are held in a good faith. That could have catastrophic outcomes for the freedom of speech and political communication in our country.

Religious freedom is the example that immediately springs to mind. As the shadow minister for communications put so well, 'Spirituality is the domain of the individual, not the state.' Yet these laws give the federal government and overzealous digital providers the power to decide which speech, including which religious speech, is reasonable. In their submission on the bill, a group of faith leaders said that providers will be 'empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself'. The Australian Catholic Bishops conference noted in their submission that judges could then be required to adjudicate on the reasonableness of religious expression. The idea that big tech and government will be made the arbiters of truth and reasonable religious expression isn't just a matter for people of faith; it is something for all Australians to be very concerned about.

I'm no particular ally of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. I think this is probably the only time I've ever agreed with them on anything. But, on this occasion, even the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

The government's role as an intellectual arbiter of the truth in social and political debate must be constricted, if not completely denied.

It flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of law, our human rights obligations and the separation of church and state. From philosophical, public procedural and policy perspectives, this bill misses the mark completely. It is philosophically un-Australian, and it must be rejected.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The prevalence of misinformation and disinformation both on digital platforms and in the media more broadly is a cause of great concern not only for me and my community of North Sydney but around the world. As a result, to effectively combat this issue, democratic governments worldwide are trying to tread a fine line that balances the need to objectively deconstruct untrue and harmful content whilst protecting freedom of expression. After all, online platforms can be used for purposes that both strengthen and undermine democracy and values. They can increase access to information and facilitate the free exchange of ideas, increasing diversity of voices contributing to public discussions and allow for broader public participation in a democratic conversation. But they can also be used in ways that pose a threat to democratic processes through disinformation campaigns that undermine trust in public institutions and exacerbate divisions within society. As the Australian Human Rights Commission stated in their submission to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media:

The challenge lies in ensuring that any policy responses mitigate the risks posed by the latter, without disproportionately impacting upon the former.

That is the challenge before the parliament now—to assess whether this bill strikes an equilibrium between safeguarding against disinformation while protecting freedom of speech.

This bill has drawn a lot criticism, and I'm sure I'm not alone in receiving substantial amounts of correspondence from my community with concerns about potential implications of the bill before us and getting the balance wrong. On the one hand veering too far towards combating misinformation risks shutting down free speech, delegitimising alternative opinions and justifying censorship. It risks imposing a single view of truth, as some have written, or a chilling effect on free speech that stymies innovation and alternative thinking. On the other hand, veering too far towards protecting free expression risks ignoring the spread of disinformation, leading to political interference in elections, inciting violence and, amongst other risks, spreading severe, harmful health related information.

Disinformation has already influenced democratic processes around the world, from the 2016 US presidential election to the UK's Brexit referendum. A World Health Organization's review of studies into misinformation and health found social media propagated poor-quality health related information during the pandemic, humanitarian crises and health emergencies at an increasing rate. The report notes that such spreading of unreliable evidence on health topics amplifies and promotes unproven treatments. The COVID-19 pandemic was a prime example. A review of 14 studies conducted across different countries found that serious harm had occurred because of COVID-19 related misinformation. Cases included hydroxychloroquine overdoses, drug shortages, changing treatments of patients with rheumatic and autoimmune diseases, and panic over supplies and fuel. In just one example, a popular myth that consumption of pure alcohol could eliminate the COVID virus led to 800 deaths and more than 5,000 hospitalisations.

Yet, while the reasons to legislate are becoming increasingly evident, striking the right balance is going to be tricky. It was clear that the government's first attempt in the 2023 iteration of this bill did not hit the mark. To its credit, the government has appeared to listen to some of that criticism, but the reality is that there is much in this bill that continues to need to be addressed. The growth of digital platforms over the past two decades has fundamentally changed the way we all access information, with social media platforms now the equivalent of the modern-day public square. Indeed, according to the Genroe Australian social media statistics, in 2023 almost four in five Australians had active social media accounts and more than half of them used social media as a source of news. Yet, while these digital platforms have developed rapidly, the regulatory environment has not. There is growing consensus, then, that the new digital environment, while increasing pluralism and engagement with politics, also poses significant threats to both our society as a whole and individual safety, with a number of recent reports highlighting the harmful effects of misinformation and disinformation disseminated on digital platforms on civil society and vulnerable minority groups.

From the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's digital platforms inquiry to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the conduct of the 2022 federal election, legislators have been discussing this challenge for some time. To be clear, personally I am not a fan of government legislation as a way to regulate industry. I would much rather see sectors self-regulate effectively, ensuring they are putting the needs of their consumers ahead of their own profits if necessary. But Australia's voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation implemented in response to the digital platforms inquiry has not been sufficient to stop the problem because a number of the major platforms, including Reddit, Snapchat, WeChat and, as of November last year, X, are not signatories. Voluntary commitments on the part of companies have not always been implemented effectively, and a lack of transparency and consistent data means that the implementation has been difficult to measure. Ultimately, the truth is that these platforms are commercially driven and are designed to keep users on them as long as possible to attract advertisers. In this way, the environment is absolutely primed for manipulative techniques.

That brings me to the bill before us, which aims to drive these commercial entities to prioritise their end users' welfare. Just as we wouldn't let a dodgy car on the road with bad brakes, we cannot allow these businesses to continue to operate with the same poor standards. The bill proposes to do that by regulating the platforms so that they take reasonable steps to ensure that their products are not being used to spread mis- and disinformation. The bill aims to do that by imposing obligations on the digital platforms to assess the risk of mis- and disinformation on their platforms and publish a risk report, to publish their policies for managing mis- and disinformation and to publish media literacy plans to detail the measures they will take to help users better identify mis- and disinformation.

It also provides the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, henceforth called ACMA, with powers to obtain information about mis- and disinformation from digital platforms, to make rules requiring digital platforms to keep records relating to mis- and disinformation and implement a process for handling complaints and resolving disputes, to register enforceable misinformation codes that set out the measures the industry will take to reduce the risk of mis- and disinformation, and to make misinformation standards for sections of the digital platform industry if the codes do not adequately protect from misinformation.

Importantly—this is really important for people to understand—these codes and standards will be disallowable by this parliament, and the digital platforms will continue to be responsible for the content they host and promote to users. In this way, these new powers are designed to promote transparency and hold digital platforms to account for the actions they take to counter the spread of mis- and disinformation on their services, but they do not enable ACMA to engage directly with the content producer nor demand that content be removed. As made evident through the impact analysis of the bill, significant effort has been put into drafting the legislation to ensure that these powers are appropriately balanced so that any limitation on freedom of expression would be proportionate to the ultimate objective of protecting the community from serious online harm.

That being said, many still have concerns about the legislation, and they deserve to be acknowledged and answered. The most common is that this bill will unduly restrict the implied right to freedom of expression and freedom of political communication. Many are concerned that, rather than protecting our community, these powers as exercised through ACMA will ultimately mean that it will be the government of the day that decides what is and is not acceptable to say, capturing valid expression under the definition of misinformation. As one person wrote, if the last few years have demonstrated anything, it's that what is often labelled 'misinformation' may actually later be proven to be correct.

Some are also worried about the potential for the silencing of legitimate concerns or over censorship, and these concerns are shared by some very prominent human rights organisations, with the Human Rights Commission highlighting a number of deficiencies in this bill. Again, I want to reiterate that I understand these concerns. It isn't surprising that the Australian community would be worried about their right to freedom of expression, given that this right is not explicitly protected in our federal Constitution or our statutory law. Additionally, across the globe we are increasingly seeing authoritarian governments using misinformation to their advantage, and at home we are witnessing the increasing suppression of the right to protest and the prosecution of whistleblowers. Again, while I acknowledge and understand these concerns, I do believe this bill includes appropriate guardrails to ensure that, to the extent that there is a restriction on freedom of communication, it is justified and proportionate.

Importantly, the fact that these new ACMA powers are directed to digital communication platform providers and not individual end users provides me with some comfort that, while certainly not perfect, this bill is at least headed in the right direction. By focusing on incentivising digital communication platforms to have robust systems and measures in place to address mis- and disinformation, I believe this legislation turns the responsibility back onto the service providers themselves. Importantly, if the legislation had enabled ACMA or any minister or politician to have direct take-down power for individual content or accounts, I would not even be considering supporting it. But, as it's currently drafted, this reform also actually protects certain implied rights, including the right to participate in public affairs, the right to vote and be elected, the right to security of person and the rights that protect against vilification and discrimination.

Ultimately, weighing up these competing interests and rights requires an ethical framework, and this is where we are at a disadvantage as a nation. Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world without either an overarching federal bill of human rights or a human rights act. If we had that in place, arguably this conversation and debate would be far easier.

On that point, I just want to draw particular attention to what I see as a completely inconsistent stance taken by the opposition on this legislation. Only a few months ago, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended Australia introduce a human rights act, the opposition dissented vociferously on the basis that Australians' rights are already adequately protected. Give me a break. You can't have it both ways. Either rights are adequately protected or they're not.

I've also heard concerns from my community about excessive powers granted to ACMA. As one person put it to me:

The notion of ACMA acting with such authority, effectively becoming a gatekeeper for what is allowed on our digital platforms—from public health debates to political discussions—is deeply concerning.

These concerns are valid, but I do believe they are being addressed through the increased safeguards added to this bill since that first draft back in 2023.

In particular, I want to draw people's attention to section 70 of the bill, which provides a review mechanism which includes an assessment of the impact of the bill on freedom of expression three years after commencement and 'must be conducted in a manner that provides for public consultation'. I would have liked to have seen that review being undertaken within 12 months, but, having been here for 2½ years now, I get it—things don't move as quickly here as they do in the real world.

Further to this, however, I note the bill does not stipulate that this review be conducted independently from the government. In that context, I have been working closely with the minister and her team to try and ensure this is amended in the final legislation. In addition to this, I would draw the First Nations peoples' Aboriginal corporation concerns to the minister's attention as I believe they raise important issues on how cultural knowledge systems like Indigenous health practices may be wrongly classified as misinformation. Censoring community based health perspectives could risk exacerbating a lack of trust in health institutions, reducing First Nations engagement and necessary services and limiting the freedom of First Nations communities to manage their own health and wellbeing. To ensure these concerns are appropriately addressed, Indigenous leaders must be properly consulted in their review of the bill's impact and the government should give consideration to embedding a culturally aware framework into the legislation, as per the corporation's recommendations.

In addition to this, Australia's broader plan to combat online misinformation must be improved. Digital literacy campaigns are a useful shield against inappropriate online influence, with numerous studies and reports highlighting the importance of media literacy to combat mis- and disinformation without threatening the right to freedom of expression. In the Nordic countries, for example, which consistently top the Media Literacy Index, media literacy education is a core component of the school curriculum, as are critical thinking skills and comprehensive civics education. In comparison, a recent study by the Australian News and Media Research Centre found that 68 per cent of Australians had a low or very low level of news literacy. Clearly, there's an opportunity to increase Australia's digital literacy.

Ultimately, I believe combining education with effective regulation to hold digital platforms to account would potentially drive the best outcomes for all, but just because I think that doesn't make it true. Therefore, I commend the member for Goldstein for also moving amendments that she believes would strengthen researcher access to the information within the bill so that we can actually have independent research on how misinformation spreads and how best to combat it.

In closing, the risk that mis- and disinformation poses to this country is so great that I do believe we need to start somewhere. Perfect should not be the enemy of good. So, while there is certainly room for improvement in this legislation, particularly with regard to an independent review and academic access to information, with some amendments I will be inclined to support this legislation as a first step to reduce the spread of harmful mis- and disinformation.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The centre of the education system, when I went through it in Queensland, had a number of hallmarks. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four were on the reading list for some 60 or 70 years. They've recently been taken off the reading list. For those who are not familiar or have forgotten these works, I found them extremely scary. In both cases they had thought police, and they were monitoring what you said and what you did. If they didn't like it, watch out. They talk about an Orwellian spectre. It conjures up images of Big Brother watching you continuously. If you go into a hotel now in Queensland, there is a camera there on you. If you use any language that may be considered racist by the thought police—and what is racist is their opinion of what is racist. If you exemplify anything against LGBQTs or whatever they call them then, again, you're breaching laws, and Big Brother is watching you.

I was on the front of the Australian newspaper the election before last, because I had two of my grandsons coming up and I said, 'Oh, beauty, we'll get the Diana air rifles going and set up the targets.' My wife said, 'No, they're under 16'—the boys—'and they're not allowed to have them.' They're just old air rifles. They couldn't hurt a flea. But, oh, no, you're not allowed to do it. It's illegal. I said, 'Alright, let's rig up the flying fox'—zoom, zoom, zoom and splash into the swimming pool. But, no, we couldn't take a panel off the swimming pool fence. I said, 'They won't come out and inspect us; we're two kilometres out of town.' But they were out last week, and our fence was 2.8 centimetres lower than it should have been and he wanted to replace the whole fence. He goes, 'In order to replace the fence, it's $3,800.' I said, 'Alright, we'll start work on the second stage of the tree house.' She said, 'No, a kid fell out of a tree house two months ago in Brisbane, and tree houses are banned.' I said, in desperation and exasperation, 'We'll go down to the flat'—we have 11 or 12 acres—'and we'll teach them how to boil the billy and make damper.' The most iconic Australian image is boiling the billy! It's part of our national identity. But, no, you cannot light a fire in the open without getting a permit, and it'll take two or three months to get a permit.

Is this a free country? When that song was chosen to mark the 200th anniversary of Australian settlement, there were only 300,000 or 400,000 people—maybe only 200,000 people—living here, and then suddenly there were lots and lots of people living here. To commemorate that, they kicked it off with a song which was sung, quite rightly, by Slim Dusty, 'We've Done Us Proud'. It goes:

We've done us proud to come this far—

two hundred—

… years to where we are,

Side by side, hand in hand, we've lived and died,

For this great land, we've done us proud.

The song says, 'We sailed the seas in search of freedom.' Freedom? Freedom? Your kid's not allowed to boil the billy. Your kid's not allowed to have a tree house. Your kid's not allowed to zoom, zoom, zoom into the swimming pool. Your kid's not allowed to have an air rifle. Is this a free country?

What you believe people should and shouldn't do is your business. Don't impose those values upon me. This is a free country. Don't impose those values upon me. Well, of course, they impose those values now, every day of the week.

Tonight was the result of the election in the United States. There's a hell of a lot of wokies in this place. You better start saying your prayers—although you don't believe in God, so I don't suppose you could do that. But you better start worrying, because there was no doubt that was an election of the wokies versus the Americans.

There's an election coming up here, and you've already seen the results in Queensland. I was working on those booths. Those people weren't interested in anything other than getting rid of the Labor Party.

If you want to know what the Labor Party are about, have a look at their last week in office. They passed anticoercion laws. If I raise my voice to my kids, watch out, that's coercion. I don't care what definition of coercion you want to use. Legally or in the dictionary, coercion falls into the category of: if you scream at your kids or your wife screams at you or you scream at your wife, that's coercion. So they've passed a law to go into your house and decide what you can and can't say and how you can and can't say it. That is the extent to which these people have destroyed our freedoms.

The Department of Home Affairs—I have felt ashamed of being an Australian, but this one really made me feel ashamed, and the government has sat there and done nothing about it. They've spat upon our Australian flag and said it can't be flown. A government department? The people running this country are the people living here in Canberra. I don't want to be nasty, but it's a very small gene pool. If you've got to get the brains of a country out of 300,000 people who are inbred now over five generations of public servants breeding with each other here in Canberra and who think that they know everything about everything and that they can impose their will upon the rest of Australia, I'll tell you what, mate: you're in for a big shock.

If you'd worked on those polling booths and you were a Labor supporter in Queensland, you would have gone home, visiting a certain place before you went home, because you would have been scared silly and quite rightly so. The people now are rising up in their righteous anger. They know that you're un-Australian. They know you represent all the values that we fled Europe to get away from. Graeme Connors in his magical song said, 'I sailed the seas in search of freedom.' If you want to really look at what they were after, yes, ostensibly it was gold, but gold meant freedom to them. They lived under a regime where rich and powerful people could tell you exactly what to do. They could take advantage of you if you were a young lady working as a maid in their big mansions. They could take advantage of you. They were running the world slave trade and the world opium trade, and they controlled what you could say and what you couldn't say. Our forebears fled to Australia to get away from that, and here it is coming at us again.

The Department of Home Affairs has banned the use of the Australian flag. My family lost a son in the First World War and lost a son in the Second World War, so please excuse me for having strong feelings about the flag. Where it came from and what it's about is not the point. The point is that it is our Australian flag. If you don't believe in those values, for heaven's sake, leave this country because you're not an Australian. For all the years I've got left that Jesus provides me, I am going to very aggressively fight you. All my uncles and cousins and my father and everybody went out to try to defend Australia from being taken over and having all of our freedoms taken off us. Yet we now have a fifth column in Australia. The Americans dealt with their fifth column in fairly rough justice.

ACMA is going to control what we can and can't say. Who are ACMA? They'll be people selected by public servants here in Canberra, and they will be deciding what you can and can't say. Most of the democracies in the world were based upon the works of Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman. America is of course the first really, truly democratic state, and their constitution was very much based upon the works of Alexis de Tocqueville. His most famous idea was the tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is bad enough, but this has gone a lot further than that. What we're watching here is the tyranny of the minority.

When you say there is an elitist gene pool here in Canberra—I claim to have a bit of blackfella, First Australian, in the family tree. I don't know whether I have or not, but I come from Cloncurry, I'm dark, and we always identify as a 'Murri from the Curry'. Also, I have many, many relatives of course that fit into that category. We have our own way of doing things, in the way we approach things, and they may not necessarily be the values that are exemplified here in Canberra, but they're our values. Now, a little group of elitist, well-educated people that are in Canberra are going to tell us what to do and not do. Let's just view how these people have administered the First Australians. The life expectancy of a First Australian living in their homelands is 56. For the rest of Australia, it is 82. So Australians live to 82, except if you're First Australian.

I tried for four years desperately to get the late Jason Ned, who was the mayor of Doomadgee—he had mustered more cattle than anyone else in human history—a Good Australian Award off the Prime Minister in front of 400 or 500 people at the Mount Isa Rodeo. Jason sadly died a couple of weeks before that. Of Jason, the biggest cattle owner in Australia, someone said, 'How is Jason going?' and I said, 'Good, mate. He has got over a thousand head now. It's worth about $1½ million, what he has got together.' You try sitting in a saddle all day and having to go again and again at a flat gallop to wheel a breaker into the mob and risk your life. If your horse hits a hole in the ground or a branch, you're literally dead. Yet this bloke had done it. He'd also mustered more cattle than any other person in human history. However you measure a person, this was a great man, and he was getting, quite rightly, a Good Australian Award.

The next two people who will get it are, as the architect of the year, CopperString, which will open up massive mining developments and the biggest wind farm maybe in the world at Hughenden—a wonderful leap forward; he's getting an award—and the builder of the first medical school in 44 years in Australia, aiding medical schools to walk through the door he opened. They're the people who are getting this.

Jason Ned was getting this. He was a good Australian. He was a famous man. He had sat in the saddle for years of his life and got together $1½ million for his family. And this is how his country said thanks to him. I applied for four years to get him a pastoral lease so that he'd have some sort of ownership of his own homeland, where his family had lived for 30,000 or 40,000 years. 'No, we want to look after you! We want to look after you!' I don't want to use the word 'socialist', because I don't think there are any socialists left in here, to be quite frank. What's more is that, as a very active member of the CFMEU, I'm called a socialist all the time. So I won't use that turn of phrase. But the people that run Australia say: 'We want to look after you, you poor downtrodden blackfellas. We just love you and we want to look after you!' Well, to quote Percy Neal's brother at the big riot demonstrations against the COVID lockdowns: 'We don't want you to look after us. You whitefellas, we don't want you to look after us; we just want you to go away. Get out of our lives. Go away. We don't want you to look after us.' But, no, you say you've got to look after us.

So you're looking after the land for us? We can't actually use the land for the purposes which we used it for the last 40,000 years? No, a little group of elitists down here in Canberra say, 'We're looking after the land for you.' Well, go up and have a look at how they're looking after the land for you. Go and have a look at the Forty Mile Scrub, the most iconic national park in northern Australia. There's nothing there—nothing there at all. It has been burnt to a cinder because you don't look after it; the cattlemen look after it. At all the cattle stations around it, there is no fire at all. But the national park's gone. That is what is being imposed upon our First Australians.

They want to control what we say and what we don't say. Well, we've seen how you run things. We see a graphic indication of that. I really hate to say this, but what is taking place in the Torres Strait must get to the United Nations sooner or later. Among those people, the women had fruit and vegetable gardens. Every single house had fruit and vegetable gardens. They've been banned. They got their income from fishing. It's been banned.

Debate interrupted.