Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

where we expressed a view about the Safe Schools program. Again, one would argue that there is freedom of speech involved in this case through publishing certain facts. With respect to that particular program, which is now widely spread amongst our schools, we have seen an attempt to deconstruct some mainstream views that are held. I suppose the question is: are they entitled to do that? I say that when you apply the test of responsibility they fail that test. When you apply the test of responsibility to whether you should expose 12- and 13-year-olds who are going through a confused state of puberty to the material that is published in those documents, whilst one may exercise freedom of speech to publish those things, that test has failed.

Attacks on freedom of speech and attacks on people's rights come in so many forms. It is not just to do with a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs. People are often bullied—we can use that term if you like. People exercising their freedom of speech will attack people for their physical characteristics. I might say, in a light moment, there have been references made about my physical characteristics. But this also occurs with the aged and the disabled. It occurs with people in relation to their socioeconomic circumstances, their educational status, their academic capacity, their sporting prowess and their expressing a view on any subject matter. That is one of the particular problems that we have here within this Senate, within this parliament, within this place, where we are supposed to set an example. Some of the contributions that are made are not very mature. People use freedom of speech to denigrate people about how they dress and their preferred genre of music and literature, and on and on it goes.

For our part, one of the first times freedom of speech was articulated at an international level was with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It said:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whilst that declaration is not legally binding on our nation, we are a signatory to it. It is one that I think our country respects. I know that we apply the provisions of this definition when we consider legislation in this place. Again, I contest the principle behind the subject matter this afternoon, which is that the Turnbull government and, indeed, this coalition since it has come into power, has done nothing about freedom of speech. It is interesting to note that, except for one or two examples, which I will address as I go forward in my contribution, very little evidence has been presented to support the thesis that, somehow, the Turnbull government has failed to support the right of freedom of speech. I will refer to this in the future as 'freedom of responsible speech'.

One of the references has been to national security. When it comes to freedom of speech, there are all sorts of limitations that I think are reasonable and responsible. We see confidentiality provisions in all sorts of legislation—not just about national security but often in relation to law enforcement agencies. There are limitations and—indeed, legislative restrictions—on people having the freedom to speak about some of those issues associated with live investigations or the operations of a court. There is no need for me, I assume, to elaborate on why those restrictions exist. They are fair, they are reasonable, they are considered and they are necessary for the effective operation of, in these cases, courts, law enforcement agencies and indeed all arms of government.

They exist in the area of professional privilege—for example, between a lawyer and their client or between a doctor, other medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist and their patient. In business, there is commercial-in-confidence, where there are limitations on people's freedom to express themselves where they might release confidential information that would damage a corporation or a business entity. There is a tacit confidentiality between students and teachers. There are, you would accept, many, many other limitations, but I for one think that those limitations are reasonable.

Again I make the point that, within the scope of my knowledge, there is nothing this government has done in legislation that would offend the principles that have been set out by the UN declaration and the general definition of 'free speech', not in the time that I have been in this place. In levelling that accusation at the government, you need to look at what action has been taken when the government have been confronted by such issues. For example, as we have restructured some of the framework and architecture around national security agencies over recent months—and of course we are strongly committed to national security agencies—we have paid very serious regard to protecting these rights and liberties that we have. We all know that protection sometimes can challenge rights and liberties. When protection is provided, you may have to surrender a small liberty, or sometimes a large liberty, in exchange. We have all felt that. Those in my age group who travel through airports understand how much things have changed in the last decade or more.

We also put in place a mechanism, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, whose role is to review the operation, effectiveness and implications, importantly, of Australia's counter-terrorism and national security. That monitor makes recommendations to the government—it is independent of government, so the government does not have any capacity to influence its work—and freedom of speech, freedom of movement and all these liberties and freedoms that we have are right at the heart of the monitor's charter. The government has implemented each and every one of the monitor's recommendations in full—each and every one, without qualification, without amendment. They have been introduced by this independent body.

The coalition also commissioned the Australian Law Reform Commission to do a far-reaching review to see whether there is any legislation brought in by us or that we have failed to implement that unreasonably encroaches upon traditional rights, freedoms and privileges—including, of course, freedom of speech. This review is one of the most comprehensive and significant inquiries ever undertaken by the Law Reform Commission—ever. I will not bore the chamber by going through the terms of reference line-by-line, all of the areas they were asked to examine, but I challenge anybody in the Senate to identify any category or area that needed to be looked at that is not there where that constitutes some failure on the part of this government to preserve the right to freedom of speech.

At the end of my contribution, I want to make this point. When a decision of the parliament does not accord with a person's view—and every day we leave this place there has been a decision that might not accord entirely with our view—that does not form a basis for us to argue that somehow our right to speech was so limited, so inhibited, that we were unable to influence this poor decision, or this decision that we did not agree with.

From my broad knowledge of this parliament over many years, even though I am a relatively new participant in it, I really do believe that both sides of the parliament hold the right to free speech very close to their hearts. They understand that it is a fundamental element of a civilised and democratic society. I will not be part of any criticism of any efforts of the Labor Party previously, because I think there are some very decent people in the Labor Party who hold this value way up high—at No. 1, I suspect—on their list of values. All I urge everyone to do is to consider how we conduct ourselves sometimes in this place and that we allow other people to express themselves without being denigrated, because that is a form of suppressing freedom of speech, as Senator Day identified. If people get to a point where they do not feel comfortable expressing themselves any longer in certain forums or in a certain manner, that, I think, would be a fundamental failure on the part of each and every one of us in this place—if we are not prepared to stand up and speak our minds without fear of intimidation, and it comes in so many forms, from colleagues in this place or from pressures from outside this place.

I close as I started. I have spent a lot of time around the world, and this is the finest country. It has the finest freedoms and liberties that I have experienced anywhere on the globe. I am a very proud Australian—I know we all are—and I think we need to seriously think about how we conduct ourselves to ensure that freedom of speech is not only maintained but enhanced. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.