Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy. I too thank the chair for his leadership—a firm hand on the tiller—as well as all my fellow committee members, the secretariat and all those that made submissions. I also thank the generosity of Senator Pocock for working with me to draft some additional comments. I would say that he and his staff carried probably a heavier burden, but I thank him for his generosity in allowing me to make a contribution on the issues that are important to both of us.

For me, this inquiry was important because it's about the public debate and how we construct the public debate. We are no longer debating in the public square. We are debating online, and therefore there is great risk for manipulation, both with misinformation and disinformation. We are struggling with this, not just on our energy transition and climate change responses but on a whole variety of issues, but it is particularly acute in the area of the responses to climate change. Why? Because our democracy is grappling with a transition. Whether you agree with how the transition is being conducted, which is where the debate really should be, it requires winners and losers in an economy, and that drives behaviours. Not all of them are acceptable. Those that seek to restrain transition or progress will use any measures at their disposal to disrupt the open, transparent and fair conversations that need to occur. Unless they occur, we cannot have a proper conversation on the trade-offs. Much of the debate, even in this place, is about advancement or economic advancement without pricing in the cost to nature. In fact, the actual damage to nature is conveniently left off many contributions in the debate, particularly in this place.

When I was thinking about this, I thought of two quotes. My friends in the Greens will just have to endure conservative environmentalist quotes! One is from Russell Kirk, a well-known United States conservative environmentalist. He said:

In our 20th century, humankind is proud of "conquering nature," by tools that vary from the bulldozer to insecticides. But like other merciless conquests, this victory may end in the destruction of the victor.

What he's trying to say is this is critically important. Thus, our debates must be at the highest level. Yet there is so much—I actually learned this on this inquiry—aggressive action, from fossil fuel companies in particular, to protect their market. That's okay as long as it's declared and we know what their status is in the debate. But it's cloaked. It's hidden. Therefore, a member of the public is not fully informed to be able to weigh up whether they wish to support a fossil fuel company or a renewable company. In fact, I don't necessarily see it as a binary decision.

Another quote that came to mind was from a former conservative environment minister Lord Deben, who is one of my personal heroes. He says:

We need to make the transition as easy as possible, but we mustn't pretend it isn't going to have difficulties. You cannot say to people what is being said: that we are going to deliver net-zero in a way that nobody notices. That is just not possible. What you have to do is first of all to recognise that we have to deliver it. And secondly you have to recognise that we have to deliver it in a way which is fair to the people …

That, I think, sets the stage for what this inquiry was trying to examine. We were very conscious—everyone on that committee—that we did not want to trample on the rights of free speech, because the whole point of having an open and transparent debate is to underpin freedom of speech and, from freedom of speech, have active and engaged decision-making of the body politic and the community that supports the body politic. As a consequence of sitting on this committee, I am probably more worried about the nature of the debate, online in particular, than I was before I started, so I thank the chair for his initiative. I would encourage members to read the report and the additional comments from all members.

My additional comments with Senator Pocock focused on other issues, such as lobbying and transparency about algorithms, and other pillars that we both saw as shoring up the whole of the body politic, which I think is under increasing stress. All of us have been made targets of social media campaigns. If you haven't, you're lucky. But it will happen to you one day, and that may be on any issue that has vexed. In many ways, it's undermining what we're trying to do in this chamber. I would like, as everyone knows in this chamber, nature to be at the centre of all decision-making. But I should be taken on on that prospect in this chamber, on television, and the trade-off should be put to me to justify, which I am happy to do. I thank all my fellow committee members.