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

O'SULLIVAN (—) (): In the mid-1930s, as dark clouds gathered in Western Europe, then backbencher Winston Churchill rose in the House of Commons and warned of the storm ahead. He said:

Germany is arming—she is rapidly arming—and no one will stop her.

Churchill repeatedly spoke out about Nazi Germany's militarist tendencies and its growing rearmament strategy. He also highlighted the dangers of Britain's lack of preparedness. Many in the political establishment and the media were alarmed by Churchill's warnings about the rising threat of Nazi Germany. Some accused him of needlessly stirring up fears, reminding people of the horrors of the Great War that were still fresh in their minds. Others said he was simply seeking to advance his own political ambitions in what they saw as the sunset of his days. History proved these critics wrong. Churchill would later call this period his locust years. He was right about Nazi Germany, and, because so many refused to listen, the world entered one of the darkest periods of the 20th century.

I draw this comparison to highlight the dangerous aspirations behind the now discharged Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the Albanese government's latest attempt at censorship. Labor's spectacular backflip on their second attempt at this bill further cements their reputation as an out-of-touch government that consistently delivers failure. Had a bill like this existed in Churchill's time, he could've been censored for being a threat to free speech, for disrupting public discourse or for upsetting another country.

The Australian public recognised what this bill represented. With its introduction, the government sought to impose government mandated rules requiring digital platforms to prevent and respond to misinformation. If this bill had succeeded, it would've financially incentivised digital platforms to censor Australians. In other words, it would've encouraged profit driven censorship of free speech. Imagine Churchill giving his speeches in a world governed by such a bill. Social media companies might've claimed his warnings were false, misleading or deceptive. His words, which history tells us were crucial, might have been silenced.

It's laughable that the Treasurer tried to convince Australians that this bill was about protecting and advancing free speech, not censoring it. Australians saw right through this. The government should focus on tackling issues such as inflation and the cost of living, the crisis that they have presided over, rather than attempting to restrict free speech. This delusion typifies Labor's approach to anything it disagrees with, as was clear during last year's Voice referendum. Instead of fostering a contest of ideas, as any healthy democracy does, this government consistently employs covert tactics to silence critics and dissenting views. Even former Labor minister Kim Carr has warned of the dangers of this approach. He recently wrote:

The Labor ship has struck the rock of identity politics … with too many of its spokespeople adopting a censorious tone to those who fail to embrace their particular social policy agendas.

Faith groups also expressed their concerns about this bill. They feared it would empower digital platforms and bureaucrats to determine whether religious belief was reasonable. The Australian Christian Lobby summed up these dangers perfectly. They said:

The premise of this legislation is that power to determine the accuracy or truth of information … can safely be entrusted to government, an independent statutory authority, digital platforms and/or regulated media outlets. That should be anathema to anyone who cherishes the freedoms that underpin liberal democracy. Australians must be free to access information and engage in the public discourse that shapes political opinion.

They went on to say:

It is essential that Australians should be able to express personal views, to critique the evidence and arguments of others and to act in accordance with their individual conscience and personal beliefs.

This bill, like so much legislation under this government, was far too broad. While it targeted the speech of everyday Australians, it conveniently exempted certain groups, creating yet again an uneven playing field. The inconsistency would have created two classes of people in this great country of ours. Even worse, it would have empowered the communications minister to order investigations and conduct hearings into misinformation. History warns against centralising such power. The public saw through this, as they did with the religious discrimination bill. The government underestimated Australia's strong interest in protecting free speech. The widespread outrage ultimately forced Labor to abandon this second attempt at pushing the bill through, further proof of their disconnect from the public that they are supposed to serve.

During the 2023 exposure draft consultation process, over 24,000 responses were received, including 2,418 public submissions. At the time of this speech, the environment and communications committee had published only 98 submissions to its inquiry into this bill. In the submission to the exposure draft, the Law Council of Australia noted:

At the heart of the difficulties presented by the Draft Bill are the definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'.

…   …   …

Given the breadth of the definition of 'misinformation' … the Law Council cautions that a digital platform is unlikely to have sufficient expertise or adequate resources to make accurate and completely informed determinations as to whether content is false and, therefore, may choose to censor significant amounts of information in order to ensure compliance and avoid incurring substantial fines. This would—

and this is the kicker—

in turn, have a significant impact on freedom of expression.

This bill was widely condemned, certainly by the Human Rights Commission, the civil liberties bodies and religious institutions, leading to its well-deserved demise. Perhaps the only achievement of this government is that it has finally united the country, just not in the way that it might have hoped. Australians from across the political spectrum have come together to reject such an attack on our democratic freedoms. Leading lawyer Professor Anne Twomey described the bill as a fiasco. Chris Merritt, the vice president at the Rule of Law Institute of Australia said:

This Bill is a Trojan horse that would vest the power of parliament in one person.

…   …   …

Nobody has a monopoly on truth—least of all public servants who report to a politician.

Yet, despite these warnings, the Albanese government ignored Australians' concerns, pressing ahead with the bill until the day that it was due to be debated in the Senate. Only then, with the overwhelming public opposition staring them in the face, did they retreat. This backflip reflects poorly on the Prime Minister, whose lack of judgement has left this government adrift. Out of touch, lacking direction and with an increasingly nervous backbench, this government continues to flounder.

Let's be clear. This bill represented a clear and present danger to free speech in our country. Its withdrawal is no victory for Labor. It's a victory for the Australian people. But make no mistake. This momentary pause does not signal a change of heart from Labor. They struck it off the Notice Paper primarily because the bill had zero friends in the Senate. For most of us, this bill was dangerous and went too far, but, for the Greens, this bill did not go far enough. The question that I have is: what will a future Labor-Greens minority government do in this space? Contemplating that question puts shivers up the spine of every freedom-loving Australian. If this bill re-emerges, as it has before, I will continue to fight tooth-and-nail alongside my coalition colleagues to protect Australians' cherished right to free speech. This is not just about politics; it's about defending the freedoms that underpin our democracy. Many of our forebears gave their lives for these freedoms. They are not privileges granted by government; they are the rights that belong to every Australian. Mr Albanese must promise Australians that they will never again try to censor free speech. Free speech is not negotiable. It is essential to our democracy and must be protected at all costs.