On Sunday, 12 January 2025, Australia’s Federal Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, in a widely reported speech, made a compelling case for electing the Coalition to government in the forthcoming election, scheduled for May. As expected, he promised to fight cost of living pressures, support small business, build seven nuclear plants to ensure reliable and cheap energy, improve housing availability, reduce Australia’s unsustainable immigration levels, and tackle crime. He also signalled the establishment of a closer relationship with Israel to counter the dangers of antisemitism. His address to the party faithful was, in effect, the Liberal Party’s unofficial launch of the election campaign.
Although these promises are welcome, they nevertheless constitute motherhood statements because they fail to indicate how an elected Coalition administration would deal with today’s controversial issues. Hence, his speech is important, not for what it said, but for what it omitted, thereby raising substantial questions which, right now, are not amenable to satisfactory answers.
Lately, the news media have taken an interest in Dutton because opinion polls suggest that his popularity among voters is increasing. This is not surprising since it is not altogether preposterous to describe the Albanese government as the second worst government in Australia’s history (after Whitlam’s experiment). This description is deserved because, among many other detrimental things, Labor government policies have decisively contributed to inflation. Its housing policies are appalling because of the high intake of immigrants who have nowhere to live and might find it challenging to secure a suitable job. This makes it almost impossible for young Australians to buy property at an affordable price.
Furthermore, the government’s encouragement of Palestine’s demands has fuelled antisemitism tendencies in Australia by its voting record in the United Nations, its advocacy of a two-state solution, and its insistence that no Israeli settlements be made in the West Bank.
Of course, its irresponsible green policies, involving the installation of solar panels, and wind turbines, have devastated our farmlands and degraded the countryside. Its obsessive support of anti-freedom laws, regardless of its consequences have created a climate of fear and oppression.
One contentious issue is the internationally decreed imposition on Australia of Net Zero emissions by 2050. Admittedly, any decision to jettison the 2050 Net Zero lunacy would expose Dutton to unimaginable levels of ridicule by members of the international elites. For example, even the European Court on Human Rights, on April 9, 2024, rendered a judgment that, potentially, will have far-reaching effects on climate change law and litigation worldwide, including in Australia. In a 16 to 1 judgment, the Court decided that Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, had been violated by the Swiss authorities for not adopting effective and timely measures to mitigate the impact of climate change on the plaintiffs.
The implantation of the Net Zero fantasy into the minds of impressionable people has led to the belief that the science is settled. Yet, recent scientific developments suggest that, while there is climate change (ongoing for billions of years), carbon dioxide is not to be blamed for global warming. Instead, more carbon dioxide is needed to ensure that fauna and flora can survive the devastation of land degradation and the government’s cannibalistic conduct.
The problem, however, is that people with a vested financial interest in renewables – more accurately described as ‘unreliables’ – have corrupted the narrative to suit their objectives, which is centred on greed. It is therefore in their interest to (shamefully) characterise the slow-moving and modest natural increase in temperature as a ‘crisis’. Is a Dutton-led government willing to expose the climate fraud and stop the Albanese government’s disastrous renewables policies at the earliest opportunity?
Although Dutton may have a good opportunity to defeat Labor, there is no guarantee that his government will have the courage to implement a conservative or common-sense agenda. What will he do about identity politics, and the divisive diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) obsession? Will he protect girls and women from the encroaching biological men in female-only sports? Will his administration save babies born alive after a failed abortion? What are his views of gender transitioning and laws that prohibit conversion strategies? Will he reverse the ban on under-16 access to digital media? What will he do to ensure the free expression of religion in the public forum? Will he ensure that the indoctrination of children in schools is no longer part of the curriculum? Will children be encouraged to honour their forebears and to be proud of the history of their country? If not, he will surely be seen as a disappointment, and another lost opportunity – the story of modern liberalism in Australia.
The prospects of adopting a law to provide medical assistance to babies born alive following an abortion are not promising. The Liberal Party has reportedly vetoed discussion of abortion legislation because it would poison the election campaign and give their opponents a weapon with which to attack the Coalition. Like David Crisafulli, the Premier of Queensland, it seems the Federal Liberals are not keen to talk about abortion and have hushed MPs willing to protect the rights of babies born alive after an abortion. Of course, the party must be a disciplined force, but when the party itself erodes the principles on which it is based, the MPs no longer have an obligation to slavishly follow the dictates of their Leader.
We are doubtful that a Coalition government has the ability or willingness to truly embrace conservative values. Most of the public utterances of the Opposition only serve one purpose: to be elected. This is because the Opposition have displayed anti-conservative and even authoritarian tendencies during their time on the backbenches. It is now regarded as just another left-wing party that tries to position itself slightly to the right of Labor.
The Liberals (and the Coalition in general) are doing this to capture the centre, not realising that it alienates its traditional conservative supporters who now cast their primary vote for minority parties, even if these votes find their way back to the Coalition. For example, it took the Liberal Party, and its leader, an agonising eight months to come out against the Voice to Parliament, even though Liberal principles should have told them that equal citizenship is a unifying force in Australia. Dutton was only swayed when public support for the Voice started to fade spectacularly, and Jacinta Price became the Indigenous spokesperson. Since then, he has indicated that, as a Prime Minister, he will only appear in front of the Australian flag in order not to further divide the country into tribes which an insipid Labor government would have achieved by entrenching the Voice into the Constitution. And it is encouraging that a Coalition government would even consider the adoption of a law to enshrine January 26 as the official nation’s holiday. But much more is needed.
The key to rejuvenating Australia’s political fortunes lies in the protection of free speech. Even the making of unpalatable statements is salutary for our society because they will inevitably encourage debate and reflection and result in condemnation if a person abuses his or her free speech to achieve unsavoury purposes.
But Dutton’s record on free speech is abysmal. Let’s not forget here that Dutton is not exactly a friend of free speech. On the contrary, when the Albanese government announced its authoritarian plan to adopt ‘misinformation’ legislation empowering the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to force social media platforms to tackle any alleged ‘misinformation’, Dutton’s first reaction was to say the Coalition was willing to work with the government to strengthen eSafety laws and introduce the new misinformation laws. Likewise, the deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley, also thought the Opposition should support Labor ‘in cracking down’ on social media platforms.
We should not be surprised because past governmental behaviour is a good predictor of how a new Coalition government might behave once again. For example, the former Coalition government, under domestic terrorism response protocols, sought to censor Covid-related content that, in practice, amounted to the outrageous silencing of dissenting voices daring to (correctly) question the efficacy of vaccines, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates. That Coalition government’s misinformation about the safety of vaccines was based on flawed research conducted by pharmaceutical companies selling these experimental vaccines. The deregistration of doctors, who provided vaccine exemptions or prescribed alternative treatments, such as ivermectin, was an especially egregious violation of fundamental human rights.
There is still bipartisan support for the belief that government should protect vulnerable people, even at the expense of free speech. Of course, government policies should protect vulnerable people, but this is unlikely to be achieved by silencing debate and discussion in society. Nobody denies the harm of hate speech, but speech rights are most necessary for the weak, not the powerful. As the former Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, once correctly remarked, ‘It makes a foolish assumption that free speech favours those with power. Anyone who has studied a skerrick of history knows that protecting free speech is about giving voice to the powerless against the majority and established interests.’ Consequently, freedom of speech ought to be viewed as a mechanism against the concentration of power.
Conversely, the restriction of individual viewpoints is a serious infringement of democratic values, and the gains from hate speech laws are tenuous. Any possible benefit is outweighed by the chilling effects of such laws to democracy and freedom of speech. Under democratic theory, writes James Spigelman AC QC, ‘Open discourse is conductive of discovering the truth than is government selection of what the public hears. Free statement of personal beliefs and feelings is an important aspect of individual autonomy.’
Fortunately, the Coalition eventually opposed attempts by the ruling Labor Party to impose an obligation on the digital media to police any speech which is incompatible with government-determined policies and priorities. But Dutton’s support for banning people under 16 from accessing social media is horrendously wrong, as one of the authors of this piece has argued elsewhere. However, there is clearly a movement away from suppressing free speech because X and Meta leaders now come out in favour of free speech. In this context, the demise of fact checkers is a welcome development because these checkers were often a mouthpiece for the progressive left-wing activists. Decisions as to what is true or false should be left to the community and the marketplace of ideas.
President Trump’s powerful inauguration speech could, and should, serve as an inspiration for a Dutton-led government. Trump clearly stated that he would return free speech to its rightful place in America’s legal order. Moreover, in his speech, he undertook to reinstate a sensible energy policy, promised a restoration and strengthening of the border and American sovereignty, and stated unequivocally that there are only two genders: male and female. This is a powerful message, which Dutton should be wise enough to borrow as the leitmotif in his search for a better Australia. But fear of the press has caused the Coalition and Labor to preference bland, easily controlled cardboard-cutouts instead of charismatic leaders. The result is a poor leadership model that follows headlines instead of creating them, drip-feeding on focus groups and implementing the advice of irresponsible and opportunistic advisors.
There is still a hope, palpable throughout Australia, that the time has come to return to common sense policies to get Australia back on track. Let us start with giving free speech a chance to rejuvenate this country. Let’s make Australia great again!
Gabriël A. Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University.
Augusto Zimmermann is a professor of law and served as associate dean at Murdoch University. He is also a former commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.
Zimmermann & Moens are the authors of The Unlucky Country (Locke Press, 2024).
