Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can only concur wholeheartedly with the comments that previous senators have raised. Without freedom of speech, no good idea ever becomes a great idea and no ridiculous idea ever founders under the weight of reason. So, where former Chief Justice French found that even a limited number of incidents were seen to affect or impinge upon freedom of speech, the adverse impact on the public perception of the higher education sector and indeed the future of our nation remains very real.

The amendment bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, is a necessary and functionally sound amendment that improves the alignment of academic freedom and freedom of speech more broadly. The amendment bill improves that existing language where it relates to free intellectual inquiry, which I would have thought was self-evident. If a university cannot be a place of truly free intellectual inquiry we don't have much hope as a nation.

It is important to note that the intention of the bill is to protect freedom of speech, and it is not to be used to impinge upon the beliefs and religious ethos of the higher education institutions around Australia. So, while staff and students will remain free to exercise their right to free speech in the respective academic inquiries they undertake, the institutions themselves will not be forced to undermine or contravene the fundamental religious precepts that underpin their existence. This is an important delineation between the freedom of academics and students to engage in that free speech through the academic environment and the freedom of speech that they rightly enjoy as Australians in their personal capacity. Speech made in an academic capacity is more correctly and descriptively categorised as an academic freedom of speech, while speech made in any personal capacity is more appropriately considered under the broader definitions enshrined in Australia.

For the benefit of both students and staff, this amendment bill is essential in improving the definition of 'academic freedom' and highlighting the importance of that freedom to the future of study and research in Australia. It is also essential in underpinning the important role of freedom of speech in Australian statute. Freedom of speech is a basic and fundamental component of our society, and I think it is the duty of all senators in this place to clarify and protect this freedom when it is under attack from the woke, from the cancel culture and from the Left, who ultimately would rather control that thought and expression in Australia such that those views which run counter to what they hold to believe are dismissed rather than debated rigorously.

I think that discussions around freedom of speech are often overcomplicated and overthought. It is simply a personal liberty that must not be impinged upon by government. It isn't given to us by government. It is an inalienable right that we are born with in a free democracy. It is our primary duty as representatives of the Australian people to guard this right from governmental interference or, in fact, interference from any other source.

Freedom of speech must be protected in our society but most especially on university campuses, where the very purpose of the work and study undertaken on that campus is to challenge and further intellectual pursuits and broad understanding of the issues we confront as a nation, no matter where the results and research or even the context of that debate may lead. In fact, it is often speech we most fundamentally disagree with that is that most important to protect. As Noam Chomsky said, even Goebbels was in favour of free speech for the views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you do not support the free speech of ideas that you disagree with, or even rightly despise, you are not in favour of free speech at all. So why not support this cautious and incremental reform to maximise freedom in all areas of society, particularly one as important as academic study in the universities? I would contend that it is better to have a 'dangerous', if I can use the term, level of free speech rather than have a limitation on freedom of speech that is controlled by anyone at any point in time.

In the context of an Australian university, that even limited number of incidents that Justice French found does have a negative impact on the public perception of the higher education sector. So it is important to set a solid and clear standard, not only to protect freedom of speech but to more appropriately delineate the freedom of academic inquiry that is undertaken, or ought to be undertaken, on a university campus. I emphasise that freedom of speech, as a fundamental right here in Australia, should be as simple and as clear a concept as possible, and this amendment improves the definition for that academic freedom of inquiry whilst preserving the tenets of freedom of speech in Australia. That delineation is essential to preventing students and academics who engage in free intellectual inquiry from being cancelled or otherwise affected by the woke revolution that we seem to be in the grips of. This is critical to the success of our nation and, indeed, the universities that operate here. By aligning the act with the model code as proposed by Justice French, this will strengthen the principles of basic freedom of expression and unequivocally support a culture of freedom that must be enshrined in all of our university campuses.

The freedom to express a countervailing opinion is essential because the progress of our society is reliant on this natural and very basic freedom. This shouldn't be controversial. The antithesis to full freedom of speech is controlled speech, and that control resting in any individual's hands at any time should be of grave concern to all in this place. Universities that receive public funds shouldn't want, much less be permitted, to restrict the outcomes of academic research or in any way punish those who undertake research in those institutions, even where the conclusions aren't controversial. Why? It is because if the conclusions were wrong or not supported by a rigorous interrogated debate then they would naturally go by the wayside. That is the point of freedom of academic inquiry. Ignoring the outcomes of research is simply sticking one's head in the sand, and that is where the matter should rest.

In my view this is an essential reform to protect a fundamental freedom in Australia and help ensure our prosperity as a nation into the future. The academic environment and the culture of freedom on our campuses will be all the better for it, as will our success as a nation overall. Having any top-down pressure on research outcomes in a higher education institution might be expected in an authoritarian regime, but it absolutely cannot be permitted in Australia. The unique characteristics of and influences on those higher education institutions in Australia require this government to ensure that academics and students, when functioning in that academic capacity, have the freedom of their academic inquiry protected. The existing phraseology of free intellectual inquiry is too broad, and we've seen that through the cases that my colleagues have cited here today—most notably the dismissal of Professor Ridd. It is imperative to this government's continued support for the culture of free thought and inquiry that this bill be accepted.