Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

One Nation supports this motion. We agree that the people should have a right to decide if the Constitution should be amended to ensure greater protections for free speech. This is something One Nation believes in very strongly. It's something we've advocated for in this chamber and across the country.

I believe the last time we made some attempts to progress this issue was because we acknowledged some of the things that Senator Scarr brought up—that this is a very complicated issue. I believe it was via a reference to develop terms for a referendum. I do believe the Liberals supported that, but it was blocked unfortunately, which is a shame, because it is a very complicated issue. It is through things like the Senate committee process that we can start to unpick this and unpack that and figure out some of those matters that Senator Scarr raised about incitement to violence or shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre and how those types of language or talking don't actually constitute free speech. I don't believe that Senator Babet, through this motion, was advocating for those things.

It is a shame that we haven't had a greater ability as a Senate to unpack those questions. We have tried to. We have put forward proposals. We have looked at investigating this, but, again, we've been shut down and silenced by the other side of the chamber, who do not feel that this is such an important issue, who feel that those concerned about the continued erosion of our free speech don't deserve a voice and this doesn't deserve further inquiry. It does; it definitely does, and that is why One Nation has been so strong on free speech. It is why we have supported a constitutional change to a referendum, however that may be. As Senator Scarr rightly points out, this is a complicated issue, and the wording would have to be determined in a very careful way. It's why we pushed for an inquiry into the terms and the rules, because it's not just about politics.

Ultimately, this is about the kind of country we are handing to our children. As a One Nation senator for New South Wales, I represent families and small-business owners and farmers and retirees and young people, and all of them are becoming sick and tired of having their voices shut down. They're becoming tired of being silenced.

I am proud that One Nation has been so strong on this issue. I can say that Senator Hanson has been right on this issue. Even Senator Hanson herself has had her voice shut down. Even she is being dragged through the courts right now, because we have seen that the implied right to political expression which is in the Constitution doesn't go far enough to protect the capacity of Australians to speak and to have opinions.

If we continue to let the Labor Party and the Greens and others control language and debate, we will lose Australia. We'll also start to lose democracy, because freedom of speech and the capacity to talk freely go to the heart of our democracy. If we cannot debate clearly, if we cannot talk frankly, if we cannot speak without fear that we may be dragged through the courts or find ourselves in prison, then we cannot have a true debate and a true democracy, because if Australians can't speak freely then our elections become theatre and the government becomes something that does things to you, not something that you can affect truly. If you cannot argue for the things you believe for fear that the government will step in to silence you and censor your political expression or your freedom of speech, then we'll start to lose the Australia that we live in.

It's unfortunate. At times, it seems that those in this government think that the public needs to be managed like children. They act like disagreement is dangerous. They believe that questions are offensive. They do not believe that ordinary people can be trusted to think for themselves, so they are desperate to control what you can say. They will shame you for asking questions. They will smear you as hateful and ignorant or extreme for asking questions. A perfect example is Senator Hanson, who engages in complicated topics and raises important issues. And suddenly all of the laws of the land are turned around and people are crying for her to be put back in prison: 'Take her to court!' We see that this is occurring because there has been an erosion of our freedom of speech—of our right to political expression.

We truly believe—One Nation believes—that, unless we take steps to enshrine in our Constitution a stronger protection for freedom of speech, then this slow creep of censorship that we are seeing, which is stifling our democracy, will only get worse. Again, this is happening because Senator Hanson and we in One Nation challenge a system that, in many ways, divides Australians for their own benefit. It's a system where the reward for Australians who work hard, pay their taxes and follow the rules is to then get lectured at by people who don't have to live with the consequences of their own policies, because they might hold the right political views. So, when they express their political opinion, they are free and safe to do so, but when others express theirs, suddenly their political expression will end with them winding up in prison. And that cannot continue.

One Nation will always defend free speech because free speech is how ordinary Australians, everyday Australians, defend themselves. It is through free speech that they have the ability to say, 'This isn't working.' It is through free speech that they have the right to say, 'I don't agree.' It is through free speech that they have the right to demand an explanation and to ask who benefits. And it is through free speech that they have the right to say, 'Put Australia first. Put our nation first.' When governments and institutions start talking about policing speech, regulating opinions and cracking down on 'wrong' views, every Australian should be alert. That is why we will not ever let this issue go. In listening to Senator Scarr, we understand those points that he raises about the complexity of this problem, but One Nation believes that it has gone too far, that we can see with things like 18(c) and these hate crime laws that have come in that they move beyond the realm of some of those issues that are raised about incitement to violence. They move into censorship of legitimate political expression.

It reaches a point where the only way you can then defend against this is via a referendum. It's not that anyone is particularly keen to rush back to a referendum; that's why, the last time One Nation raised this, we sought to do so through a committee process to determine terms of reference and do things in an orderly and managed way. But, again, we get shut down. We cannot have this debate. We cannot have these complex discussions, because the other side of the chamber doesn't want to allow them. That should concern you because, when government and institutions start policing speech, it never stops at the people they deem to be the extremists. It always winds up targeting everyday people. First they go after people with the loud voices, but in the end they will go after the people with the quiet voices. They will go after the quiet Australians. And then they'll go after everyone. That is why One Nation will always stand up for free speech: without it, we cannot have truth and, without truth, we cannot have a strong country.

Let me be clear: asking questions is not fearmongering. So often it is that questioning things, questioning the government or having difficult discussions gets you accused fearmongering or dividing the country. I believe that asking questions is your job as a citizen and that it's our duty as senators, which is why One Nation raises this issue. It's why we supported Senator Babet on this. It's why we pushed for an inquiry into terms of reference for a referendum. Australians, when they're asked to vote on something as serious as constitutional change—look at the last referendum, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. That was such a pivotal moment, and you could see how the other side—the Labor Party, the Greens and others—so desperately wished to crack down on the capacity for parties like One Nation to staunchly oppose their side and to staunchly argue for our side. In the end, it was through that debate and that argument that the public turned around. When it started off, the polling showed that they were in favour of the voice. Then One Nation led the way. We said: 'No. We believe this is wrong. We believe this is divisive. We believe this makes our country worse, not better. We should all be a nation of people united together. We should not be putting this in our Constitution.' We led the way on that, and we won the argument. Then others came across and began to make the same arguments—arguments I believe many wished to essentially make illegal. I believe it's no stretch to say that some of the things we were arguing for others wished would be illegal. They wished they would have shut us down, and that would have been a tragedy. If we did not have the capacity to make those arguments then we couldn't have won the debate, and then that voice to parliament—the terrible, divisive voice to parliament—would have become a permanent fixture in our nation's constitution. That would have been a tragedy for this nation.

It was only through free speech and an implied right to political expression that we were able to win that debate. As a result, you can see that others then said: 'We can't let that happen again. We can't continue to allow a situation where people are able to argue those points.' They will move to shut them down, which is why I do believe the Senate needs to take more seriously the issue of protecting free speech. Words matter, definitions matter and, when legislation passes in a rushed way, legal consequences matter.

The last example of that was in laws we took post Bondi with the hate crimes legislation. We talk about doing things in a responsible way, but there was nothing responsible about the way that legislation was pushed through. What we had was a very complicated bill that was put to a committee process, and there was a limited time to look at it. Then, all of a sudden, overnight, that bill was pulled apart and a new one was plonked down, and people were given mere hours to look at it. So, when people talk about being responsible and treating the issue of free speech in a responsible way, perhaps they should reflect on that instance, because protecting free speech is a difficult and complicated thing in many ways, but, if you're not careful, you destroy it too. If you are not careful about the process, if you don't allow debate, if you don't allow scrutiny of new legislation, you suddenly start picking away at free speech, and Australia becomes a much worse place for it.

I'll finish with this. Australia is a nation held together by rules, principles and common understanding, and one of those values is free speech. We have a right to speak and to criticise the government. We have a right to advocate for ourselves, we have a right to advocate for our nation first, and we have a right to a shared belief that we're all Australians regardless of our background, that all of our opinions are equal and that they should not be censored or stepped on by the government. So, when you see others then attempt to demonise those advocating for free speech as extremists, that is divisive in itself. I commend you, Senator Babet, for raising this issue. We do need to take the time to look at this more. It is something One Nation has spent a lot of time on. We will again in the future because, again, if we do not protect this valuable thing that we have, one day it will be lost, and we'll never get it back.