Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Roberts, which is shown at item 14 on today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

Freedom of speech and peaceful freedom of assembly are inalienable rights which the Senate must defend.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. I call Senator Roberts to move the motion.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

Freedom of speech and peaceful freedom of assembly are inalienable rights which the Senate must defend.

What do the billionaires who run the world do when we, the people, realise how much has been stolen from us—how much money, how much sovereignty, how much opportunity?

In the next few minutes, it will become obvious what this has to do with the misinformation and disinformation bill—'m-a-d' or 'mad', for short. The world's predatory billionaires do not wield their power directly; they hide behind wealth funds such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. These funds act in concert with political change agents, including large superannuation and sovereign wealth funds such as Norges. The racket these subversive elements are running really is racketeering. They use their wealth to buy shares in companies that are then required to follow the agenda. This is not my opinion; these are the exact words of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. Buying out Western civilisation is an expensive business. The never-ending quest for more money, more power and more control is being noticed and resisted. Much of that resistance has been as a result of Elon Musk buying X and allowing the truth to live in one mainstream forum.

The minute the BlackRock racketeers walk into a boardroom, any notion of public interest is abandoned. A case in point is Coles and Woolies, who used to pride themselves on providing the necessities of life—food and clothing—at the lowest possible price through competition. With the presence of an almost complete set of predatory wealth funds on their share registers, Coles and Woolies no longer compete against each other. Instead, they collude to pursue a pricing strategy designed to maximise profit from our necessities of life—profit that's sent overseas into the coffers of these sovereign wealth funds, leaving Australians permanently poorer.

In 2022-23, around an election, Woolies donated $110,000 to the ALP. In 2022-23, other industries under the control of these predatory wealth funds, including the big pharmaceutical industry, donated a million dollars to the ALP. What do they get for their money? Last Tuesday, I spoke in favour of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into a prospective terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID response. Despite me simply agreeing with the committee report and despite my using only peer reviewed and published science to support my position, Senator Ayres from the Labor Party chose to describe my words as—listen to this:

… damaging misinformation and disinformation … there is a reason why the ASIO director-general highlights the role of extremist misinformation and disinformation in terms of its corrosive effect. It does lead to some of the acts of violent extremism here and overseas, motivated by the same vile conspiracy theories that we've just heard …

Wow, what a rant! No data, no argument; just empty labels.

Our New Zealand friends started their royal commission into COVID in December 2022. New Zealand has now decided that the royal commission unearthed so much behaviour that was cause for concern they've expanded the royal commission to include looking into COVID in much greater depth, including vaccine harm. The New Zealand royal commission now closely resembles the royal commission the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee recommended following their inquiry initiated on a One Nation referral. For Senator Ayres to say this is extremist misinformation and disinformation likely to lead to acts of violent extremism is a complete slap in the face to New Zealand's royal commission and one that Senator Ayres would be well advised to reconsider.

This is the trouble when the government panics that $1 million in donations is at risk and brings on a bill that will shut up any opposition to the rule of the billionaires through their front companies—in this case, pharmaceutical companies—a rule that is, quite simply, a threat to the future of our beautiful country. With total clarity, Senator Ayres has drawn the battle lines here. What is the truth in the New Zealand parliament is 'extremist misinformation and disinformation' in Australia, if the Ayres government says it is. This bill has no protections and no checks and balances—it should rightly be renamed the 'crush any opposition to the billionaires' bill.

While the Labor Party's desire for totalitarian censorship is no surprise, the people need to be aware that the Morrison-Littleproud Liberals and Nationals introduced this bill. Opposition leader Dutton makes no indication of whether he intends to oppose the bill, I guess because when he gets in he'll be happy to use its onerous provisions. While I don't have time to go into the Liberal Party's donations from companies under the control of the world's predatory billionaires, the same issue affects both parties. The Morrison-Littleproud government kept the COVID vaccine contracts hidden despite our requests to make the contracts public for those who paid for the injections—taxpayers. The temptation to have extra money to spend in an election campaign has proven far too much for the major parties, and their independence, objectivity and common sense have been compromised. The world's predatory billionaires' downfall will be their hubris. The question is: who will go down with them?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this very important matter. I think we can all agree that Australia is the greatest country in the world. It didn't become that by accident and it will not remain this way by accident either. We as Australians must continually make active decisions to fight for, protect and defend our freedoms.

Someone who understood this in their time was German theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was well known for his resistance to the Nazi regime in World War II. He was a key figure in the Confessing Church, which opposed Adolf Hitler's control over the German Church. Bonhoeffer was eventually imprisoned and executed. In his influential book The Cost of Discipleship, he introduced the concept of cheap grace. By 'cheap grace', Bonhoeffer meant a grace that demands nothing from the believer. It's cheap because it costs nothing and asks for no change or commitment. In a similar way, Australia risks adopting a mindset of cheap grace with regard to its freedoms. Many Australians enjoy freedoms like freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and they often take them for granted, expecting that, without fulfilling the accompanying responsibilities, these rights would follow.

True freedom, like Bonhoeffer's idea of costly grace, requires active defence, accountability and sometimes sacrifice. Without this commitment, Australia risks devaluing the freedoms that are so essential to its democracy. Winning the lottery of life and growing up in Australia means you have a leg up compared to so many other places across the world. Yet it seems that this Labor government is set on restricting freedoms for some while enhancing the rights for others, undermining our fundamental freedoms. We saw it with their divisive Voice referendum, an attempt by the Prime Minister to divide Australians on the basis of race. What happened to advancing Australia fair?

This year, we have also seen the attack on religious freedoms, through their proposed religious discrimination bill. The Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended the repeal of section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Doing so will make it illegal for faith based schools to uphold their principles by choosing only to hire teachers who affirm and support the ethos of their school. Justice Rothman, the author of the ALRC report, disclosed that he was constrained by the terms of reference set for him by the Attorney-General. This alarming revelation underscores the government's active role and desire to repeal section 38. The Albanese government, through their commissioned ALRC report, want to throw the majority of Australians under the bus to pander to a fraction of the population.

According to the latest census data, over 54 per cent of Australians identify as religious; 95 per cent of private schools are religious; and, nationally, those religious schools make up over 30 per cent of schools in Australia. That's 1.5 million students and tens of thousands of teachers that support them. The removal of section 38 will remove the current protections allowing schools to maintain their values and faith. It's not just schools; it will open up religious institutions and places of worship to further attack. The erosion of these freedoms is not only concerning, but it sets a dangerous precedent where the state is given too much power to dictate the boundaries of legitimate expression and assembly. We now have the Prime Minister's misinformation and disinformation bill. The original draft was a disaster to our freedoms, and, at first glance, the latest version seems to be no better.

The pace of the advancement of the opponents of freedom has accelerated in recent years. We need to boldly stand up against it before we lose our advantage completely and, importantly, to reclaim what's been lost. As that great freedom warrior of the 1980s President Ronald Reagan once said:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.

Like Reagan said, now is the time for us to fight for freedom, to protect freedom and to defend freedom.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government is committed to a robust discussion of diverse views and opinions as a necessary part of a vibrant and effective democracy. Freedom of expression and peaceful assemblies are protected in Australia by domestic and international law, and implied freedom of political communication is enshrined in the Australian Constitution. That implied freedom can be limited or burdened but only by laws that are reasonably appropriate and adapted to serving a legitimate end and in a manner which is compatible with Australia's system of representative and responsible government.

The right to freedom of expression is also recognised in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party. Article 19(2) protects freedom of expression in any medium. That includes written and oral communications, the media, public protest, broadcasting, artistic works and commercial advertising. While the right extends to the protection of unpopular ideas, international law recognises that freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities and may be restricted on several grounds when necessary, such as the protection of the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order or public health.

The right to peaceful assembly is recognised in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The right to peaceful assembly protects the rights of individuals and groups to meet for a common purpose or to exchange ideas and information, to express their views publicly and to hold peaceful protest. The right extends to all gatherings for peaceful purposes, regardless of the degree of public support for the purpose of the gathering. However, the right applies only to peaceful assemblies and not to those involving any violence. The government is committed to upholding Australia's laws and its international commitments protecting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Freedom of speech and peaceful freedom of assembly are God-given rights which all of us in this place must protect. Unfortunately, Labor and Liberal both lean toward censorship. They both lean toward the desire to silence Australian citizens. It was, after all, the Liberal Party who created the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, an office which has only been emboldened by the Labor Party. It was also the Liberal Party who originally gave us the misinformation and disinformation bill under the tenure of former communications minister Paul Fletcher. When it comes to the stifling of people's rights to speak freely, both major parties are on a unity ticket.

If freedom of speech is not protected, then our government could become, as former NZ prime minister Jacinda Ardern said, our sole source of truth. Without the ability to speak freely and to raise a dissenting voice, we would all have to believe that men who consider themselves women are in fact actually women. That's the government line, and everyone knows it's ridiculous. Without the ability to speak freely, we could be forced to believe that immigration is not out of control or that there is no housing crisis at all. We would be made to sit and listen to politicians spouting nonsense while disbelieving our own lying eyes.

Remember when the government told us that the COVID vaccine was safe and effective? The ability to call BS on official advice is not only an Australian trait but also a vital human trait. To ban the public from looking government in the eye and calling out its bureaucratic spin is to enslave the population to propaganda. It is also to transform our free country into a dystopian, autocratic nightmare. The government can wave around their misinformation and disinformation bill all they like, but I deserve my right to say that your health advice is unhealthy, your immigration policy is garbage, your climate catastrophism is laughable, your energy policy is just fantasy, your misinformation bill is fascism, your abortion policy is murderous, your eSafety Commissioner is tyrannical and your fluid definition of gender, which even a child knows to be wrong, makes you look like a bunch of silly idiots. Long live free speech.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I respond in detail to the motion, I'd like to clarify something. While the Greens agree with the thrust of it, we should be clear that, yes, these rights are inalienable at their core, but that does not mean that they cannot be subject to such restrictions as are necessary for the safety of people, including to prevent vilification and hate speech, and we've just had a short demonstration of why that's important.

It's no coincidence that the antiprotest laws are increasing right as global temperatures are. It's no coincidence that attempts to clamp down on dissent on university campuses and in the streets are increasing as global injustice shows its real face. It's no coincidence that antiwar protesters are being met with violence and that those standing for peace face brutality. Responding to threats of environmental catastrophe and social upheaval by more policing and harsher laws, which is the Labor and coalition trend, is a disturbing global trend, and the creeping patchwork of authoritarian state laws is chipping away at a fundamental political right in Australia.

The last decade has seen governments across the country start pulling apart the right to protest, empowering police and criminalising dissent, and it's getting worse. Laws are limiting the right to publicly disagree with governments in real and meaningful ways, and we need to resist those. We all know that protests, strikes and other forms of collective action are how rights have been gained, from a five-day week to workers compensation, voting rights and, more recently, key environmental protections and marriage equality. The streets have been places of political action. They've shown politicians the strength of public will, and they've forced places like this to make changes.

Protest isn't incidental to democracy; it's a necessary feature of the system. The right to freedom of assembly is contained in international laws that Australia is a party to, and it is at least to some extent, a very marginal extent, ingrained in the Constitution through the implied freedom of political communication. Antiprotest laws have been used to target climate campaigners and certain locations, have expanded police powers to unprecedented levels and have led to more search-and-seizure powers and harsher penalties almost across the board in this country. Those in the major parties talk big, opposing crackdowns on protests overseas, but they are steadily slicing away at the very same right in this country.

When we talk about freedom of speech, we need to also talk about whistleblowers. We talk about those who told the truth about war crimes in Afghanistan, like David McBride, who's right now in prison a few short kilometres from this parliament, while those in charge at the time are resting at home and shining their medals. We've also seen the very real penalties—in their employment and out on the streets—faced by those speaking the truth on the genocide in Gaza. Here, too, the need for the protection of freedom of speech is real. But many of those who advocate for their right to freedom of speech fall silent here. We won't be silent. Free Palestine. Free Gaza. Ceasefire now.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Roberts for bringing this urgency motion to the Senate, and I stand to speak in support of it. The rights to peaceful assembly and protest are freedoms that form the bedrock of our democracy. They have been the driving forces behind significant progress throughout our history. Environmental conservation, women's suffrage and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have all been advanced through protest. Yet today the right to peaceful protest is under unprecedented attack. We are seeing laws and regulations being enacted to limit and suppress the voices of Australians seeking to exercise their right to protest. This not only threatens our ability to gather in peaceful protests. It threatens the very foundation of our democracy, because peaceful protest is more than just a public demonstration; it is an act of civic engagement—a way for people to voice dissent and demand change when traditional political channels fail.

In recent times we have seen the criminalisation of peaceful protests on major roads, with criminal penalties of up to two years in prison. We have seen penalties for merely obstructing public places increased from 750 bucks to $50,000. Even more concerning is the normalisation of repressive tactics. Climate activists are now facing legal action from major corporations in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation, referred to as SLAPP lawsuits. These lawsuits aim to intimidate and silence activists through costly and time-consuming litigation.

This is why we must act now to protect these rights before they are further eroded. We need clear legal frameworks that prioritise human rights, not laws that restrict them—because protest is not a disruption; it's democracy in action. It is how citizens hold power to account and ensure that governments serve the people, not the other way around.

The rights to peaceful association and protest are too important to be left undefended. We must stand up for these rights now, before they are lost. Most importantly, we must ensure that future generations inherit a democracy where every voice can be heard and where peaceful protest and non-violent direct action are not only protected but celebrated.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A few years ago, former prime minister Scott Morrison responded to police violence towards peaceful protesters by telling people that they were lucky their protests were not being met with bullets. This year the current Prime Minister watched on as Victoria Police, armed to the teeth, descended upon antiwar demonstrators like an army in combat, shooting civilians with their hands up with rubber bullets, pepper-spraying old and young alike, throwing stun grenades and running people down with police horses.

Peaceful protest is crucial for realising all human rights. Many of us, including First Peoples, owe our human rights more to protests than to the goodwill of politicians. Around the world, from Ukraine to Palestine and the streets of Melbourne, the right to protest is being questioned and challenged. This is a human right that is protected by international law. Instead of questioning whether or not protesters deserve to be violently attacked by police, we should be questioning why it is that police have these weapons in the first place. We should be asking why police forces are becoming increasingly militarised and using weapons on civilians that were previously promoted at the very weapons expos people are protesting against.

This is the military-industrial complex showing its power and influence over our daily lives. From fuelling genocides across the globe to arming police forces, the militarisation of police in this country is accelerating alongside the increased criminalisation of the right to protest. The state is using laws and powers against human rights defenders, those protecting against violence, war, ecocide and genocide. Investing in war and weapons does not keep us safe. It does the opposite. Yet our tax dollars are being used to protect the merchants of death, arms manufacturers and governments, who will use their purchases to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to corporations profiting off war and genocide, we could be directing those funds to health care, education, housing and essential services. Again, I give a shout-out to pro-Palestine protesters who are out there every day, putting their bodies on the line against genocide.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of Senator Roberts's motion that freedom of speech and peaceful freedom of assembly are inalienable rights which the Senate must defend. I'll touch on the freedom of assembly first of all. I know that we had a very big rally here a couple of years ago at the front of Parliament House. I think we had well over 100,000 people here. That was a very peaceful assembly, and I acknowledge everyone that turned out that day and travelled from across the country to attend that rally here in Canberra. I must admit that at the start of that day I thought we'd be lucky to get through this without some arrests, but my understanding is that they got through the whole day without any arrests—there may have been one, at worst.

But, yes, freedom of speech is very important. As we found out last week, that itself is being attacked by the Labor government through the misinformation and disinformation bill. I'll always say that we must treat people with respect—that is very important—but we also must defend the right to debate different points of view in a respectful manner. This misinformation and disinformation bill is not even a cloak-and-dagger type bill. It outwardly says that governments, the media and education institutions are all exempt from the bill. Well, that in itself raises the obvious questions: why are these particular organisations exempt from the bill, and, in particular, how are you meant to raise objections against the government of the day if you can't criticise it for the information that it puts out?

The whole point of a democracy is, effectively, to protect free speech and protect people's rights to engage in conversation. It's also about accountability of the bureaucracy within that government. If you're not allowed to criticise the government, because they claim that this may be misinformation or disinformation, how are we meant to properly scrutinise the government? Of course, there are the usual qualifications in there which say you can't question the health advice. I've touched on that so many times I won't bother raising it again, but, long story short, we were banned on social media for saying that the COVID vaccine didn't stop transmission when, in actual fact, it didn't stop transmission.

The other thing that really caught my eye over the weekend was the fact that you've got to be careful about criticising the banking sector and the financial markets. I'm absolutely intrigued as to how that little provision got in there, because the day you can't do a bit of bank bashing is the day that Australia loses its culture indeed. There's no more Australian a pastime than bashing the banks. I think we are pretty much on a 'uniticket' there. I know that, during the recent Senate RRAT inquiry, all the parties were into bashing the banks. So it's a crazy bill but definitely a great motion.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)