Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share 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)

See this speech in context