The Australian people have voted to protect their Constitution, but the next storm seems already to be brewing on the horizon.
Throughout the Voice to Parliament referendum, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney, and Indigenous Australians Assistant Minister Malarndirri McCarthy all accused the No campaign of spreading what they term “misinformation.”
Yes23 Campaign Director Dean Parkin, on the night of the referendum, described the No campaign as “the single largest misinformation campaign that this country has ever seen.”
Reconciliation Australia released an official statement that demanded Australians “grapple with the ... disinformation that [has] been a feature of the [referendum].”
Greens leader Adam Bandt labelled Liberal leader Peter Dutton “the master of misinformation” who “sowed fear and division.”
Mr. Bandt has also called for an immediate, $250 million “truth and justice commission” to “lay the groundwork for lasting justice” and promote “truth-telling and healing.”
The ABC has run several stories in which it presents claims that the No campaign deliberately distributed “misinformation.”
The Guardian’s chief political correspondent, Paul Karp, pronounced the No campaign’s success as “the dark victory of lies and misinformation.”
Craig Foster, leader of the Australian Republic Movement, wrote, “We will need to talk about how to ensure that the vast increase in misinformation does not undermine our democracy.”
Another republican group, Real Republic Australia, called for a “new way ... to repel misinformation.”
And, interestingly enough, during Question Time in the Senate on Oct. 16, in the fresh wake of the referendum, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said, “There is no misinformation or disinformation on our side.”
Is Liberty Worth Protecting Mr. Prime Minister?
Early this year, the Albanese government proposed a new bill: the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.The bill empowers the Commonwealth, under the Australian Communications and Media Authority, with the prerogative to define what is and isn’t “misinformation.” It also exempts the Commonwealth and university academics.
This is authoritarian censorship of the highest order.
Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay has written that, under the bill, while “government content can never be misinformation,” it stands to reason that “content critical of the government produced by political opponents might be [misinformation].”
That is, if, for example, Mr. Albanese determines he dislikes one of my columns (and I am not for one moment suggesting he reads what I write—why would he?) then that column could be suppressed, deemed “misinformation.”
Unless, of course, the government itself runs the advertisement in question; that would exempt it from these draconian laws.
With all this talk of “misinformation” following the defeated Voice referendum, it now seems likely that the Albanese government is preparing to use the will of the Australian people to justify the legislation of its censorship laws.
After all, it appears to be the Commonwealth’s contention, based on several statements, not just from the prime minister but the ministers in his government, that the referendum result was significantly impacted by false claims and deceit.
Fortunately, the Voice to Parliament referendum conclusively demonstrates that Aussies are not the fools the Albanese government took them for.
So, for the immediate feature, the ball is in the prime minister’s court.
He says, “I will always be ambitious for our country, ambitious for us to be the very best version of ourselves,” and, in that, I support him wholeheartedly.
But the very best version of us does not involve a partisan president, nor does it involve introducing Orwellian-like restrictions that curtail freedom of expression.
The liberty of the Australian people must be upheld, and Mr. Albanese, as our prime minister, must now demonstrate that he believes liberty is worth protecting.
