Today is a dark day and one that does not bode well for the nation. The government's so-called combatting misinformation bill marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in Australia. Make no mistake, this bill is another alarming example of overreach and a step towards government tyranny over what we can and cannot discuss. It gives the government unfettered power and control over Australians and their right to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions. Do you realise what we're risking here? Free speech is the bedrock of democracy, and, as Benjamin Franklin said, there is no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.
The bill compels digital platform providers like X and Facebook to censor content that may contribute to serious harm. But who makes that decision? Who's the arbiter of truth? One of the bill's definitions of content that may cause serious harm is content that may cause serious harm to 'public health in Australia, including the efficacy of preventative health measures'. Where have I heard those words before? Why don't they just say misinformation is whatever discussion or debate goes against the narrative of the government of the day? It appears that anyone with a view that's contrary to the government's narrative is going to be in the firing line, just like during the pandemic, when our government, the government I was a part of, censored 4,000 social media posts as misinformation, many of which proved to be absolutely true.
I'm not alone in my concerns. In giving feedback on the original exposure draft, the Law Council rightly outlined concerns that digital platform services lack the expertise and resources to identify and distinguish misinformation. The Human Rights Commission, who were missing in action during the pandemic, said the bill didn't strike the right balance between censorship of objectively untrue content and protection of freedom of expression. It seems this final bill hasn't adequately addressed either of these legitimate issues, so why is it being rushed through? I agree with Dr Phillip Altman, a pharmacologist with 40 years experience as a clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs consultant, who believes the biggest pedlars of misinformation during the pandemic were the government and unelected health bureaucrats.
That's because they: falsely claimed that the experimental gene based mRNA injections were safe and effective when this was not supported by the available evidence, even from the pharmaceutical companies themselves; falsely claimed the senseless vaccine mandates would help to stop transmission when they were never tested for that; falsely claimed that COVID injections would keep you from getting COVID, getting seriously ill or going to hospital; falsely claimed that masks prevented transmission or infection; falsely claimed it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated; falsely claimed that early treatments were unsuitable; and falsely claimed that there was no clinical evidence to support ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Worst of all was the vilification and censorship of doctors, academics and scientists who raised the alarm about the safety of the vaccines.
But here's the rub: professional news services—mainstream media—are excluded from this bill. So they can lie or cause harm without fear of repercussions. Does anyone see a big red flag here? Based on what I've observed over the last nearly five years, it's the deliberate suppression of information by the media that is most sinister. This includes their failure to disclose the vested interests of so-called health experts, expert committees and institutions providing public advice; their failure to report on the doctors and health practitioners being deregistered and suspended for daring to disagree with the government's narrative; their failure to put pressure on the government to reveal the contractual arrangements with vaccine manufacturers; their failure to ask about the estimated 30,000 excess deaths since the rollout of the jabs; their failure to hold the TGA accountable for failing to investigate the more than 140,000 reports of adverse reactions to the jabs; their failure to highlight the minimal to near zero risk of COVID-19 in the young versus the risk to the elderly; and, most heinously, their failure to cover stories of the vaccine injured, including the thousands of injured Australians who aren't even eligible for compensation because of the illogically narrow eligibility criteria.
We're constantly assured that the science is settled and bombarded with propaganda to follow the science, but surely this dogma has no place in science. Surely our doctors, academics and scientists must be free to ask questions about assertions and debate issues. These are truly unprecedented times. In my 25 years in the parliament, I've never seen legislation like it. This is not the country I grew up in, and it's heading in a direction that makes me fear for future generations. Today I urge Australians to stand up and speak out on this bill while they still can.
