Freedom of Speech

Antic commended the motion, stating that incursions on free speech have accelerated in recent years, particularly during the pandemic and the Voice referendum. Antic argued that the suppression of debate led to poor policy outcomes and social division. Antic supported constitutional amendment to replace the implied right with an explicit guarantee, warning that without such protection, democracy is at risk.

Scarr acknowledged the importance of free speech but questioned the proposal's failure to recognise legitimate limitations such as defamation, national security, and incitement to violence. Scarr cited historical legal precedents, including the harm principle and US Supreme Court rulings, to illustrate that absolute free speech is not recognised in liberal democracies. Scarr urged clarification on how these necessary restrictions would be accommodated in any referendum wording.

Bell supported the motion, arguing that the implied right to political expression is insufficient to protect against censorship and legal action. Bell criticised the rushed passage of hate crime legislation and claimed that government attempts to control language undermine democracy. Bell stated that One Nation had previously sought a committee inquiry to determine referendum terms but was blocked, and he warned that without constitutional protection, ordinary citizens would face increasing silencing.

Smith emphasised the need for responsibility and caution in exercising freedoms and pursuing constitutional reform. Smith challenged the narrative surrounding the previous referendum result, attributing it to general Australian suspicion of central government rather than specific policy failures. Smith noted that while he respects free speech, he opposes a federal bill of rights, aligning with the founding fathers' decision to maintain parliamentary sovereignty.