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

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2024:

The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a referendum, on the matter of enshrining the right to free speech in the Australian Constitution, with particular reference to:

(a) an assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors;

(b) an examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns;

(c) an assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election; and

(d) any other related matters.

Democracies like Australia are underpinned by certain inalienable human rights. These include the freedom to associate with who we want, the freedom to travel where we will, the right to believe what we want and follow the religion that we choose, and the freedom to assemble peacefully. I strongly believe that the most important right we have is freedom of speech. This is the right to express our views, our beliefs and our opinions free from sanction or penalty by the state.

I've been involved in Australian politics for almost 30 years, since my time on the Ipswich City Council. If there's one lesson I have learned in all that time it's that freedom of speech is something we can never, ever take for granted. As Thomas Jefferson said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. He was right. There will always be those in power who will seek to silence opposition, dissent or criticism. There will always be those in power who seek greater control over us by limiting or attacking our freedoms. So there must always be people like us watching for these attacks, working to protect our freedoms and preserve Australian democracy.

My own career as a public political figure is an example of the need for eternal vigilance to protect freedom of speech. My public comments in 1996 about enormous and unequal taxpayer assistance provided to Indigenous Australians stated a truth that those in power did not want told. For speaking that truth, I was disendorsed by John Howard but decided to continue my campaign for Oxley as an independent. I was strongly encouraged by the many Australians who agreed with me and wanted equality.

My maiden speech to parliament in 1996 also contained truth that was uncomfortable for those in power. I spoke about increasing immigration from Asia—and I was right. Today, more than 17 per cent of Australians identify as Asian. The top two source countries for Australian immigration are India and China, and seven of the top 10 source countries are in Asia. I spoke about corruption in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and I was right. ATSIC was abolished for this very reason eight years later. I spoke about the industry that has grown around Indigenous funding—and I was right. We're now being asked to enshrine this $30 billion industry in the Constitution. I spoke against the economic rationalism and globalism that was destroying Australian industry and manufacturing—and I was right. So much of it has moved offshore since then, including our entire car-manufacturing industry. I spoke against the foreign ownership of land and property in Australia and demanded reduced immigration—and I was right. These are the major factors driving our current housing crisis.

Back then and to this day, I've had the guts to say what Australians were thinking, and many Australians have responded. More than a million people gave One Nation their first-preference vote in 1998. But, because of the threat this posed to the new Howard Liberal government, it was decided by those in power that I had to be silenced. They decided to take away the power that freedom of speech gave me to speak the truth on behalf of the Australian people. You all know the story. With John Howard's support, Tony Abbott created a trust fund to attack and silence me by using the courts. It ended up with me spending 11 weeks in a maximum-security prison for electoral fraud before all convictions were quashed on appeal. The president of that court of appeal made it clear that Howard and other senior politicians had attempted to interfere with the independence of the courts for cynical political motives. I was called, 'Australia's first political prisoner'. In a nutshell, it was a naked attempt to control me, to put me away in some dark place where I did not have the freedom to speak. It was also an attempt to silence and marginalise the many Australians for whom I speak—or spoke. The whole episode was a preview of what has become much more common today, suppressing free speech and repeating approved speech to control the narrative.

We've seen people denied access to hired venues and town halls because they've exercised freedom of speech to say things the establishment and self-appointed thought police disagree with. We have seen people even denied entry into Australia and other countries for exactly the same reason. The tragedy is that this suppression of free speech has actually been effective. Many people these days are frightened to say what they're thinking. Australians of faith feel compelled to silence about their beliefs in public or the workplace for fear of persecution. Australians feel stifled and disenfranchised, unable to express a political opinion that departs from the orthodox narrative.

Much of the Australian media, especially the ABC, have been complicit in the suppression of freedom of speech. They help those in power control the narrative with selective reporting and biased editorial comment. We saw it all during the COVID-19 pandemic, a subservient media and governments working with them to censor dissent over lockdowns and vaccine mandates. And now we have a government about to introduce legislation under the guise of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' and formalise the suppression of free speech into Australian law. The Australian Constitution is not a bill of rights like that of the United States. It is effectively a rule book for government. However, it directly implies certain rights, like the right to vote and freedom of religion. This referral is to examine enshrining for all time the right to freedom of speech in our Constitution.

As I said, I feel that the Australia that I grew up in, able to have a voice and an opinion, has been stripped away from us. And there is the fear-mongering, especially when we talk now of the misinformation and disinformation bill that was first introduced by the coalition government and is now taken on by the Labor Party. If we do go forward with this, this is a great disservice to our democracy. We spoke earlier today about our shrines being vandalised and the damage that has been done to them. If we reflect back on that, it's really about the people that have fought and sacrificed their lives for our freedom—most importantly, as I said, our freedom of speech. Are we going to just ignore their sacrifices? Because what we are doing is suppressing people to have an opinion and to stand up and have that opinion.

People are in fear. It's quite amazing when I see what happens when people lack confidence in themselves. They feel they're not educated enough or feel they shouldn't be saying anything because those around will actually call them names, as I've been called on many occasions: 'You're a racist. How dare you raise about immigration coming into Australia? That's racism.' I remember straight after my election on 3 March, the next day, a reporter from the Australian rang me up to do an interview. I spoke to him. The headline the next day—on the Monday, 5 March—was 'Hanson will not represent Aboriginal people'. That was an absolute lie. The fact is that it did go to court. It was before Sir Ronald Wilson. Upon hearing the full tape and the conversation I'd had with that journo, he actually ruled in my favour. It was misreporting by the Australian which just happened constantly.

Even in this chamber today, there are the jibes and comments that I get, which are based on misinformation, or personal attacks because it suits you to do that. But you deny me my right to stand in this chamber when you call out those comments. You deny me my right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Australian people, and especially those people of Queensland who voted for me to represent them in this chamber. You're denying debate, and that's what this place is all about.

You think that you can bring in these laws and suppress people because you don't want them commenting on Facebook. That's what's happening now. If any political comments are posted on Facebook pages then Facebook shuts them down. So you're really slapping in the face those men and women who have fought for our freedom—and, most importantly, our freedom of speech. You're not doing anyone a service. Many countries around the world would clearly love—and their people would dearly love—to have the democracy that we have, but we are letting it slip through our fingers because of people in this place who feel it's their right to suppress: if you don't agree with someone, then you've got to shout them down, you've got to call them names, you've got to have a go at them. How dare you say that?

It's even happening in our universities and education centres. Many students have written to me over the years, or I've run into them with their parents. Do you know what they tell me? They say, 'We actually wanted to do an assignment about you, Pauline Hanson, in the classroom, but because we did it on you, against what the teacher thought and their own political persuasion, we were marked down.' They were marked down purely because it was done about me. In a recent one the assignment was: do an assignment on your hero. Guess who the kid picked? Me. I'm very honoured that he chose me, but the poor kid—14 years of age, from a school on the Sunshine Coast—was marked down. He was actually criticised by the teacher. She said to him that I'm controversial. I couldn't possibly be his hero. I'm too controversial. But he still stood up for himself and, because he stood up for himself and he made his comments, he was then pulled before the principal, and the principal gave him detention.

That wasn't the first one, and I'm sure it won't be the last, because I've heard from these kids before. You're even suppressing the kids in our educational centres, in our schools and in our universities. I hear it from university students all the time. They say, 'We have to think a certain way and we have to answer the questions a certain way; otherwise we're marked down.' You're stifling growth. You're stifling debate. The reason we have to stop this is that it's only through debate—because of people's different ideas and opinions—that we will ever get good government.

In the workforce, people also have a diversity of opinions, and they must be heard. The public will make up their own minds on whether or not they agree with you. The public will judge you, not people from the media or people on whatever side of politics you're from. It's not about that. If you've got a fair argument then produce your argument and produce your debate, but allow everyone the right to have their say freely, instead of calling people names and pointing fingers at people and belittling them. It sickens me. It's why our country is in a hell of a mess, and it's why, when I talk to the older generation, which I do all the time, they keep asking me: 'What the hell has happened to our country? Why are we in the mess that we are in?'

Do you know what I keep thinking? I think it starts here, in this place. I find that, for most of the people here, the way you vote is not the way that you think, because a lot of people here are too gutless to stand up for what they truly believe in. They are in fear of being suppressed by their own peers or by their own parties, or the fact is that they are just yes people and they follow the sheep. They don't realise how much of a privilege it is to be in this place and hold the positions that we hold. That's why I sleep well at night, and when I'm finished in this place I will reflect on my time in here and know that I stood for what I believed was morally right.

But there is one thing that you will never take from me. You will never take away my right to freedom of speech. I will continue to fight for that for the Australian people, with honour and with pride, to the best of my ability. People don't always agree with me on all the things that I say, but they respect the fact that I stand up on principle and I say what I believe in. A lot of times, I wear my heart on my sleeve, because I love my country. I care about the Australian people. That's why I'm here. I will continue to fight for freedom of speech for them.

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

I speak in support of this motion from One Nation to enshrine into the Constitution one of the most basic of human rights: the right to free speech. When it comes to free speech, One Nation has your back. Many people believe that free speech is an existing feature of the Australian legal and social framework. It's not. The High Court has held that there is limited freedom of speech implied by the interaction of several sections of the Constitution, limited to political communication. The extent of this limited right is yet to be fully determined by the High Court. That being the case, this concept of the right to free speech, already enshrined in the American Constitution, would be a worthy improvement to our own Australian Constitution. I want to read from the motion that Senator Hanson has moved in her own name and mine:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2024:

The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a referendum, on the matter of enshrining the right to free speech in the Australian Constitution, with particular reference to:

(a) an assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors;

(b) an examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns;

(c) an assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election; and

(d) any other related matters.

This is fairly simple. It's just an investigation and inquiry.

Of course, any alteration to our Constitution must be done with the agreement of the Australian voters by way of a referendum. I know that the Australian people are sick of referendums, particularly since the doomed and expensive Voice debacle that we had to endure and that the Labor government poured more than $450 million down the gurgler on, when it could have been spent on something far more important. Yet ensuring that freedom of speech is a feature of our social and legal landscape would be worth it.

Why do we need it? In Australia we're significantly overgoverned and overregulated. One area that needs attention is the way that the government use the media to shut down anyone who wishes to discuss any concept that does not follow the government line. In these woke times, governments maintain a strong hand guiding the media into accepting and promoting often truly dumb and in some instances factually wrong propositions. We know that freedom of speech is suppressed because local newspapers and state newspapers rely on funding from advertising from local councils and state governments. It's the same with the national government, the federal government. If someone comes up with an article that is too much out of the government line, then the governments won't advertise.

In addition to some factually wrong propositions from federal and state governments, we see propositions that undermine good governance and cede sovereignty, pushing a globalist agenda—ridiculous. Social media platforms have taken on the roles of pseudo fact checkers and censors of material, deleting material that's deemed inappropriate, even if it's accurate and is disclosing inconvenient truths. Truth doesn't matter to government in Australia anymore.

As an example, YouTube recently took down material from my YouTube channel, including material on COVID vaccine or COVID injection injuries that it had deemed medical misinformation. This was unnecessary and possibly unlawful, as some of the information was material placed before the Senate, covered by parliamentary privilege and supported by proof of its truth, fully referenced. It had been up there for six months. Once I started mentioning a COVID royal commission, it's suddenly come down, and they've taken it back retrospectively. It was six months worth of work that this Senate has seen and witnessed. Somehow, political speech from the Senate is censored by YouTube, which is owned by a foreign corporation, meddling in Australian federal politics.

It's not the first time. This interference with the communication of parliamentary material is potentially an offence, but it's not covered by any laws simply guaranteeing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should still be moderated, on rare occasions, to exclude poisonous vilification or speech that promotes hate or other crimes, not something that might offend someone. That's a dumbing down of the Australian population. If anyone's feelings are hurt—you cannot give offence; you can only take offence. If someone says something in the chamber and I feel offended, that's my responsibility; it's not theirs. So we should be stopping this nonsense about someone, feeling offended, being able to shut down the other person.

It's the speech that considers alternative narratives or theories that deserves protection. This Labor government has done nothing to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions. Indeed, in terms of guillotines—the shutting down of debate—we've had major bills go through this parliament with not one word of debate. We've had major amendments voted on with not one word of debate or question. That's not democracy. This Labor government has done nothing, as I said, to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions.

During the COVID period of government failure, the government of the time moved into a period of hyperactivity, silencing critics and preventing any discussion of problems, COVID injection injuries—of which there were many—and alternative treatments, resulting in tens of thousands of needless, preventable deaths and injuries in the hundreds of thousands to innocent Australians. That was what the Liberal-National coalition did—two cheeks of the same backside.

Of particular concern is the Labor government's intention to introduce a bill to eliminate alleged disinformation or misinformation, with no identified deciders as to whether the information is based on truth or not. Who cares about the truth? Just shut it down if it goes against the government's narrative. Who introduced the misinformation and disinformation bill? That's right: the other cheek, the Liberal-National coalition. Labor introduced it. They didn't put it to the vote. The Labor Party came along into government and they introduced it again—the same bill, pretty much.

This misinformation and disinformation bill must be opposed. It represents government censorship at its worst. It's a control agenda that's occurring in so many Western countries, and I compliment Tucker Carlson for his courage in speaking the truth. It's happening largely to the Anglophone nations: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, America and Australia—and, to some extent, in Europe, but it's largely the descendants of the British Empire or Commonwealth.

Usually, we'd rely upon state or Commonwealth legislation to resolve this issue of ensuring freedom of speech. Yet, since Federation, this has not been done properly by either of these jurisdictions, state or federal. It's now high time to ensure once and for all that this protection can be established. It can be done. We need this inquiry. By our call for a committee to inquire and report to the Senate, assessments on content, process, resources required, timing and any other matters related may be brought back to the Senate for consideration.

Freedom of speech, if enshrined within the Constitution, will provide greater real freedoms to all Australians. Let's go through some of the freedoms. We've got freedom of life, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of exchange and freedom of initiative. Of all of those freedoms, freedom of life is arguably No. 1. But they don't get off the ground without freedom of speech. Speech is first. These freedoms are birth rights, universal rights. Yet we now have to come to the government and ask permission to speak freely or we get censored. That means it's not a right anymore. It's something that we have to get permission from the government for, whether it be Labor or the Liberal-Nationals.

Think about this: the most remarkable transformation of human civilisation on this planet occurred in the last 170 years. Prior to that, our ancestors were shuffling around and scratching in the dirt. Now look where we are. Human progress has come because of human creativity and human care. They're inherent in people. People want to do things better, more quickly, smarter and more easily, so someone comes up with an idea. Through freedom of speech, they share the idea—and this happened so much in America and Britain in the 19th century, and even in the 18th century. Ideas were shared: one person came up with an idea; another person, by sharing it, built upon the idea and made it more magnificent; and then someone else came along, took their idea, made an initiative out of it and transformed human civilisation.

Freedom of speech is a matter of life and death. It's a matter of human progress. I support this motion.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm reading a book at the moment called The Gravediggers: The Last Winter of the Weimar Republic. It's quite a depressing read, when you look at those democrats in that nation's democracy who were trying to defend freedoms—in particular, the freedom of political expression—and what they were up against.

By no means am I saying that Australia or any other liberal democracies are heading down the path of the Weimar Republic. What is of concern is how the Left create prisons for words, but they only create those prisons for words they don't like. They prefer to have a half freedom of speech. If you agree with the Left, or the Left agree with the policy position you take, the Left are fine with you. You're allowed to have that freedom of speech. But if they don't like you politically and they don't like your argument, then they try to stop you expressing your view.

I don't like the Greens political party. I don't like most, if not all, of their policies, but I think they have a right to express those views in a liberal democracy. I don't like the Labor Party, but members of the Labor Party have a right to express their views. The danger in Australia at the moment is that the left side of politics, particularly the Labor Party and the Greens political party, don't reciprocate that view. What will be interesting, Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, will not be those who vote for this motion; what will be interesting today will be those who don't vote for this motion. I think that will tell Australians of the political positions of the Labor Party and the Greens when it comes to freedom of speech.

That should send a worrying signal to those who take a very libertarian approach to freedom of speech. It should send a worrying signal to those who sit around the cabinet table and those who sit in the darkened rooms in this building and do their deals. We all know that the Labor Party like to get up here and talk a big talk about how much they don't like the Greens, but they'll do a preference deal for the next federal election. Mark my words, the Labor Party and the Greens will sit down and they will swap preferences. This coming federal election will be a real test of where the Labor Party sees itself going as a political organisation but also of how they're going to get into bed with the Greens political party.

The Greens political party are an extremist political party. We've seen that in Queensland. When I talk about freedom of speech, I want to talk about the hatred that some Australians are expressing towards other Australians and, in particular, the antisemitism of some of those in our political discourse who are spreading vile, hateful messages about their fellow Australians. The Greens party are up to their necks in it. We just have to look at the conduct of some Greens politicians at the University of Queensland.

We just have to look at the fact that university students in modern Australia today are afraid to express their views within institutions that should be the very beacon of freedom of speech. If you are a Jewish university student, not only are you afraid to express your views in terms of freedom of speech, but—sadly, under the left-wing discourse that is taking over Australia—also you're frightened to express your religion. It should bring shame to all Australians that one group—regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or whatever it is—are afraid not only to express who they are and the god they pray to but also to express their political views more generally.

This is happening not in some book that I'm reading, based on the dying days on the Weimar Republic. It is happening in a suburb called St Lucia in Brisbane, where the University of Queensland is based. It is also happening on every other university campus across this country. A special place in hell should be reserved for those vice-chancellors on million-dollar packages who are refusing to stand up for freedom of speech and, instead, are bowing down to the sickening mob rule of the far left. This is what we're seeing. At universities, if you are far left or if you are supporting a terrorist organisation—as we've seen in recent news articles—you're allowed, you're almost encouraged, to express those views—

I'll come to the war memorial shortly—and to push out that despicable, disgusting nonsense. The rest of us, who don't share those views, are instead cowed into silence like those in other countries.

My colleague Senator Cadell has mentioned the attack on part of our war memorial. This is where Australia is at the moment. It's at a crossroads. We have a group of far-left extremists who think it is perfectly acceptable to desecrate a memorial to those men—and it was men in this instance—who gave their all in order to defend the freedoms that these left-wing Nazis are taking for granted. I want everyone to think about that for a moment. Young men went over to Korea to fight against the scourge of communism, to fight so that the people of Korea could have the freedoms that the people of Australia have. Those men gave their lives. Yet, the memorial to their sacrifice is vandalised.

There is a cancer eating away at the heart of Australian society. When you forget where you come from and when you forget what brought you to a particular point in time, you forget where you are going. Australia is one of the world's oldest democracies and one of the world's most boisterous democracies. You only have to look at the full fruit salad of views that are on display in this chamber on a daily basis to see that. For Australia to stand by and see war memorials desecrated and for Australia to stand by and see universities—which, in their own way, are sacred as places of learning—become bastardised, with university students afraid to express their views, you have to question what is going on in our society. You have to question why this is so.

The coalition will be supporting this motion because we believe in freedom of speech. It's as simple as that. If you believe in freedom of speech, you should not have any concerns or worries about freedom of speech. This motion that has been moved by the One Nation senators is about asking one of the Senate committees to inquire into whether a referendum is needed in Australia to insert the right to free speech into the Constitution. This is about freedom of speech being referred to a Senate committee. It should not be controversial. This should not have the Labor Party and the Greens and the other left-wing senators in this place against it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Running scared.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

They're running scared, as Senator Brockman said. If you believe in freedom of speech, there should be nothing to worry about here. I look at Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr is the chair of the committee that this is being referred to. I think Senator Scarr would welcome this inquiry with open arms, and his fellow LNP members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee would welcome this inquiry because you should not be worried about freedom of speech.

The good senator from Tasmania Senator Urquhart has interjected. It is always dangerous, Senator Urquhart, to interject.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) | Link to this | Hansard source

She's exercising her freedom of speech.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to point out, as Senator Scarr said, that Senator Urquhart is expressing her freedom of speech. I say that is a brilliant thing, Senator Urquhart, notwithstanding the fact that interjections are always disorderly. But it is brilliant that you have interjected. What I would like is for all Australians to have the same right that you have in relation to interjections. I would like for all Australians to have the same rights that we have in this chamber—to have that freedom of speech. I say to Senator Urquhart and to those who might be listening that, at the moment, that right is being dissipated. It is being washed away by these left-wing elitists, the new establishment who want everything to change because they're so angry and so unhappy with Australia. They think Australia is a failed experiment, whereas I think and those on the right side of politics, those of us who are conservatives, believe that Australia is the very embodiment of what a liberal democracy could be like and should be like if we continue to look at the pillars that built Australia, particularly those Judeo-Christian pillars of where freedoms came from.

This goes back to my opening point that, when countries fail, they fail because they stop listening to their citizens. If you look at the history of the world—and I am someone who probably spends a little bit too much time reading history books—and you look at how countries have failed, you'll see that they've failed because they've imprisoned their own people and eventually those people rise up and eventually that particular system of government changes.

In Australia, we are a liberal democracy, and we should always ensure that the politicians live in fear of the people and that the people have the tools with which to keep politicians accountable. That main weapon that the people should have is freedom of speech—the right to ensure that those decision-makers here in Canberra are kept accountable. The coalition will be supporting this reference.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a few short remarks with respect to this motion from Senator Hanson, which I support strongly. As Senator McGrath said, I am the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I would welcome with open arms the referral of this important matter to the committee on which I sit, because this is such an important issue. There is no more important freedom than freedom of speech. All the other freedoms flow, essentially, from that basic, core freedom, freedom of speech.

If you come into my office you will see at the entry place a photograph of John Stuart Mill and also a wax carving of Voltaire—my two great heroes, John Stuart Mill and Voltaire. Senator Roberts, in his remarks, made me think about John Stuart Mill and his famous essay 'On liberty'. I recommend that everyone go and read 'On liberty', because it makes the arguments in such an emphatic way. There are a number of reasons freedom of speech is so important. First, it's part of the inherent dignity of each human being, of each individual—our own agency as a human being on the face of this earth. It should be a natural right for everyone to be able to express their own opinion, their own view, in accordance with their own conscience.

Second, as Senator Roberts said, how else but through the free and fair exchange of ideas and thoughts through free speech can we come to any accommodation in places like this place of democracy? How can we engage in that battle of ideas in terms of the future of our country and the future of our communities, unless we can engage in that free exchange of thoughts and ideas? And through that process—and this is the third point that John Stuart Mill made—even if you don't change your own view, you come to better understand why you believe in what you believe, through engaging with the debate. I have engaged in debates where my view has been changed, and that's fantastic as well. That's the power of freedom of speech. Either (a) you get to better understand why you believe in what you believe or (b) you might actually change your view when you hear other perspectives, other points of view and other contributions to a debate.

I want to also make the point—and, again, John Stuart Mill makes this point in his essay 'On liberty'—that it's not just about my freedom to speak; it's also about your freedom to hear. That's the corollary. When we speak, there's another person on the other side of the equation. So if you take away my freedom of speech you're taking away the freedom of others to hear my perspective, to hear my views, to hear my thoughts, to hear my lived experience, my ideas. So it's not just a question of the freedom of the individual who's speaking; it's also about the rights and freedoms of everyone else if they choose to listen to other perspectives, to listen to other ideas, to listen to other thoughts. This is absolutely fundamental to our democracy.

I referred to having a wax sculpture of Voltaire. Well, Voltaire is one of my great heroes. He is a man who actually served prison time in the Bastille in France for expressing his view with respect to society at that point in time. He went to prison on the basis of an expression of a point of view. He also was someone who stood up for minority groups. He stood up for religious minorities. He used satire and humour as an absolute eviscerating tool of debate, and no-one could do it better than Voltaire. He famously said, 'God, if you answer one prayer of mine: make my enemies look ridiculous.' That was his one plea in terms of debate, and he lived that creed. In doing so, he shed light on so many issues in such a humorous, intensely moral way that he is one of those great philosophers of the 18th century who literally changed the course of the world. This is the power of freedom of speech.

As Senator McGrath said, I can't understand why anyone would oppose this referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I chair the committee. I want the referral. Give it to me and we will look at the status of freedom of speech under our Constitution. We'll look at how it is under attack in various parts of our society. Senator McGrath referred to issues at our universities. There are also issues in the employment sphere, where the division between a person's private life and the discharge of their duties as an employee is increasingly being broken down as people's social media is examined. The sovereignty of the individual is under attack and is being eroded by those who have a total lack of tolerance for the expression of alternative thoughts and alternative ideas.

I say to those who are thinking of voting against this referral: what do you have to fear? I say it for the same reason I believe in freedom of speech. We've got to permit the expression of ideas, of thoughts and of perspectives. We shouldn't fear that; we should welcome it. We should also welcome the referral of this matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few remarks. I wasn't planning to speak on this particular item, but while sitting here waiting for the debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 I couldn't help but reflect on the comments of my good friends and colleagues Senator McGrath and Senator Scarr.

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

Give me a referral or give me death!

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We see a pattern, Senator Shoebridge, from those opposite, the Labor Party and their alliance partners, the Greens, of refusing to listen, as Senator Scarr said, and of closing their ears to extremely important issues.

Senator Cadell, who's also in the chamber, has repeatedly tried to get up in this place a very simple inquiry into the impacts of the massive build of poles and wires on agricultural land, and Labor and the Greens have blocked it on 10 occasions. They will not listen. We have tried to get the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 referred to a committee because farmers, shearers, truckies and communities in my home state of Western Australia deserve to have their stories heard and deserve to have the facts and evidence presented to this place, yet Labor and their alliance partner, the Greens, won't have a bar of it. They say: 'No. We will close our ears to the people who actually understand that industry.'

And now we have a fundamental issue of freedom of speech. Once again, we have Labor, working with their alliance partners, the Greens, closing their ears to dissent—and not even to dissent but just to hearing the truth of the matter: the arguments, the evidence. This is where the Left have got to in this parliament. They will not hear the voices of the Australian people. The only way of making them hear is going to be at the ballot box.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the names of Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, be agreed to.