Editor’s Note: Russell Broadbent is the sitting member for Monash, your electorate and he has represented this area for a considerable period of time. We asked Mr. Broadbent if he would write a regular column for this paper and this is the first. The views expressed by Mr Broadbent are not necessarily those of this newspaper.
In recent years, we’ve seen unprecedented and insidious government overreach in the name of ‘keeping people safe’. The latest installment is the misinformation and disinformation legislation, and proposed age restrictions on social media. The Misinformation and Disinformation – or ‘MAD’ – Bill will allow unelected bureaucrats to wield extraordinary and untested power. While social media platforms will be responsible for removing content, it is ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) that will set the definitions and decide what constitutes ‘mis and disinformation’. Unelected bureaucrats will be appointed in *1984-style to a virtual ‘Ministry of Truth’, with a mandate to censor content that remotely resembles anything that opposes the prescribed government narrative of the day. I’ve already had a run-in with so-called fact-checkers at YouTube when they removed a parliamentary speech I gave in December 2022. Nothing I said was offensive or untruthful. So what was my crime? It was the questioning of excess deaths that violated their community guidelines. In October 2021, the ABC published an article regarding my comments on the mass vaccination of the Australian population for COVID-19. I was slammed by the Rural Doctors Association of Victoria for it, and my argument was labelled as – wait for it – ‘misinformation’. I agree with Voltaire who said: ‘I disagree with what you have to say, sir, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.’ Labelling dissenting views and opinions as misinformation is weak and childish. But make no mistake, there’s nothing innocent about this type of engagement.
Dismissing opinions and using terms like ‘misinformation’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ is a deliberate tactic employed by defence and intelligence agencies to control thought and behaviour. The statements I made, that were labelled ‘misinformation’ by the Rural Doctors Association, have subsequently proven to be true. The COVID-19 vaccine did not prevent transmission, and we had no real knowledge of long-term effects because there was no long-term safety data.
I regularly hear from the many Australians who have been adversely affected (injured) by the COVID-19 vaccines they were mandated to take, in violation of informed consent. These are harrowing stories and break my heart every time.
The MAD bill is evidence of policy infiltration by unelected bureaucrats, undermining our democratically elected government. I don’t recall Australians asking for a ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ bill before the last election, do you? This isn’t what they voted for. Australians voted for Labor under the premise that there would be a Royal Commission into the origins of COVID-19. That was Prime Minister Albanese’s election promise, and while it turned out to be an election lie, I’d argue it has also caused ‘serious harm’.
Has the now-Prime Minister spread mis or disinformation? During the parliamentary debate of the MAD bill, members of the Coalition gave great speeches about why the bill should be thrown out. But it’s concerning and contradictory to their party values, that they will bring their own version of the MAD bill to the upcoming election. Not only are the Labor Party and Liberal Party aligned on implementing social media age restrictions but – slowly and surely – both parties are moving toward censorship through so-called ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. I don’t believe the timing of the MAD bill among other pieces of legislation – like social media age restrictions, or the digital ID bill – is a coincidence. The Prime Minister announced age restrictions for social media in the same week that the MAD bill passed the lower house leaving many confused, and wondering if the MAD bill and age restriction legislation is combined.
It seems Labor has tried to make a package deal of the MAD bill and social media age restrictions, to make both seem palatable. It’s plausible to oppose the MAD bill, but how could you oppose age restrictions for social media – it’s going to protect children, and you can’t argue against that, right? Even the Liberals support age restrictions for social media. The party that represents freedom and liberty supports restricting choice for families. This is so disappointing, but it’s not the first time. While these pieces of legislation are separate, they will work in unison to the detriment of the Australian people. Effectively, the age verification process might require your ID to be uploaded to social media platforms. Do Australians really want their ID linked to their social media accounts, especially when they can be punished for expressing their opinion under the MAD bill?
We can’t allow the government even more power to intimidate individuals who are daring to question the narrative. Just the principle of the government setting rules for the household and family is outright wrong; parents need discretion to look after their kids as they see necessary. A huge pitfall of government policy is that Australians are not seen as having unique circumstances; they are lumped together and assumed that they can be dictated to with a restriction here, an incentive there, and taxes everywhere.
Many parents are already supervising their kids online and this legislation is not necessary, it just takes more decision-making power away from the family and awards it to the government.
The past few weeks has seen both lower and upper house members bombarded by a flood of emails, phone calls and letters from concerned Australians. Individuals and advocacy groups like the Aligned Council of Australia – made up of 39 organisations and over 1.7 million members – have joined together to send the message:
Australians don’t want this bill. For all the stifling antics and government overreach, one silver lining is that the people are responding by uniting for the cause. My message to the government is to stop with the ‘for your safety’ rhetoric. Australians have tuned out, and do not trust you with their freedoms.
Give Australians the freedom to look after themselves and their families, and the collective will take care of itself.
(* Mr Broadbent was making reference to the book ‘1984’, which was written by George Orwell and published in 1949)
