 The Turnbull government has gone where no other conservative government has gone before. They're trumpeting non-stop about the inalienable right of freedom of speech, but beware, because if you use that right to make fun of the government, you might end up in prison under this bill. This bill, if passed, would mean that if a person engages in conduct and that conduct results in or is reasonably capable of resulting in a representation that the person is a Commonwealth body or is acting on behalf of or with the authority of a Commonwealth body and you aren't one, that's jail for two years. The only protection given in this bill is that the conduct does not include conduct engaged in solely for genuine satirical academic or artistic purposes. So in other words, you're engaging in satire or academic research, but you might have some other purpose, maybe a political purpose. You face jail time under this bill. And I have to ask, is this bill itself genuinely satirical? Is this a joke? And I ask the government, if you're going to say the only people who can avoid jail time are the ones who engage in genuine satire, what is genuine satire? What's non-genuine satire? What test would one apply to determine the difference? Who will determine the difference if this bill becomes law? Will the government be creating a new body or a person to review satirical works that mention the Australian government or its representatives in order to determine whether the act has been contravened? In their submission, the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights asked whether, quite under the proposed legislative regime, would each episode of Clark and Doar, the Chaser, the Juice Media's Honest Government Ads or Sean McCullough's Madder's Help need to be prefaced by explanation that the characters are not representing the federal government to avoid any risk of all concern being jailed for up to five years? And you might think this is fanciful, except the government has already taken steps before this bill has been passed to haul people up for allegedly impersonating the Commonwealth government. Some members of this place might be aware of Juice Media's hilarious work in their Honest Government Ads YouTube series. And this series has gone viral many times, and the reason it's got such a wide reception is that it holds up a light to the chaos and dysfunction of our current federal government using those dreaded weapons of satire and humour. And these people have been on the receiving end of contact from the government department saying that some of the images they use potentially might confuse people and make them think they're actually speaking on behalf of the government. I can sympathise with the government to some extent because sometimes it is legitimately impossible to differentiate the fact from fiction when this government implements policies. And I can understand how the Australian public might be confused between a farce and this government. And the Juice Media have made this point creatively many times in their popular videos. Take for example the recent video produced by the Juice Media on the government's bungled Centrelink RoboDeep fiasco. And I'll remind you as I read this out that this is an organisation that has already been approached by the government to say you potentially are impersonating government. Juice Media's video takes the form of a clearly mocked up fake government ad. And the narrator posing as a Centrelink spokesperson reads the following script to camera. And I wish now in the interest of accuracy to quote from this satirical video for Hansard so that all members can cast a discerning eye over whether this material is genuinely satire or whether the producers face jail time. Because that's what this bill is seeking to do. Make the government the arbiter of what is satire and what isn't. So let's have some of it. And I quote now from the Juice Media's video about the government's bungled Centrelink RoboDeep programs. Hello, I'm from Centrelink. Did you recently commit the crime of accessing social security? If so, you will have received a polite letter from us over the Christmas holidays indicating that you might need to pay us a huge amount of money. You may also receive a visit from our friendly debt collectors. Did you know that due to our recently introduced algorithm, at least one in five people who received our letter didn't actually owe us any money at all? We knew this. We just thought it might be more fun to force you to prove yourself innocent. It's not like you bloodgers have anything better to do. But we're here to reassure you. Centrelink's algorithm is not now functioning. It's doing just what we asked it to do, sending out a clear message to poor people that this government hates you. After all, it's distracting you from the actual bludgers who really know how to reward taxpayers. That's why we're coming after the most vulnerable people, like single-income mothers and people with disabilities, rather than billionaires who stash their money in corporate tax havens or the top third of companies in Australia that pay no tax or ministers who blow public funds on private flights to their own weddings, parties and house-buying sprees. If our efforts to ruin your life are causing you distress, call us on 132468 and if you don't die of natural causes while waiting to speak to a real person, we'll gladly refer you to counselling. Just don't go to your local MP or the media. Centrelink. Authorised by the Department of Inhumane Services and Taxpayer Routes. End quote. Now, I can see how the public might be confused between this joke video, which was released, and this actual government, which itself has indeed been a joke with its mismanagement of so-called Centrelink debts. But such is the level of angst of this government that this organisation, Juice Media, has already been told to stop using certain logos and coats of arms because they're official Commonwealth property. So it makes us very, very worried that this is exactly what the government has in mind with this bill. And to provide you with another example of such satirical material so that the House can properly be briefed on exactly what the material this bill is dealing with, offer another script from the same video on its government ads. This video script was written and released in relation to the government's recent marriage equality plebiscite. Although the video inserts an H in the word plebiscite, but not in a way that it would be unparliamentary, I'm sure, Mr Speaker, but let me quote from that. G'day. I'm from the Australian government. Are you ready for the marriage equality plebiscite? A plebiscite is when we force the nation to come together and do something really plevy and shite, such as voting on whether certain members of our society deserve the same human rights as everyone else. Because in Australia, we get to decide who has human rights and who doesn't. Plebiscite. We're not doing this to find out your opinion. We already know from actual surveys that 72% of you support marriage equality and that this figure is even higher amongst young Australians, 84%. We're just doing this to please a bunch of dinosaurs from the late homophobic era who really don't want Australia to advance into the 21st century, which is why instead of having a vote in parliament, we're blowing tons of money on a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey. But hey, at least we'll be teaching millennials how to use stamps and envelopes, as well as providing a national platform to vilify and domain LGBTI Australians and their children in the process. Plebiscite. By making it a postal vote, we've made it as hard as possible for those in favour of marriage equality to participate. So why not just stay at home in front of the telly and tune into the bachelor watching heterosexuals flaunt their exclusive right to marriage under Australian law? We'd especially like all you young Australians to not register by the deadline of August 24. Because we know how much you hate us, the last thing we want is for you to be ready to vote in the next federal election. Marriage equality, still not a thing in Australia, authorised by the Department of No Leadership and unnecessary harm. End quote. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am beginning to understand the government's concern with satire. No wonder this government is worried. And all jokes aside, the reality is that if this bill is passed, it will make producing such videos and writing such material potentially punishable by a jail term. And for a government that purports to care about freedom of speech, that is not very funny at all. Surely, Mr Speaker, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history to enter this place. Will we be able to look to the courts for inspiration and guidance about what these terms mean? Well, no, because as Mr Giordano Nani of Juice Media submitted to the inquiry, there's a doth of case law in Australia on what satire means or is defined as. So there's not much precedent to guide us. There's nothing in the bill. And a fundamental flaw, as Mr Jeremy Gantz in making submissions pointed out, is that it criminalises, and I quote, criminalises reasonable misunderstandings rather than deception. In a context where reasonable misunderstandings about the role and reach of Australia's federal government are absolutely commonplace and are widely recognised as such by all informed people. Now, Mr Speaker, there are valid reasons to prohibit false representations of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth bodies. Of course, of course, there should be recourse for someone who, for example, calls someone up pretending to be from the tax office demanding payment. But should someone be thrown in jail because they dress up like the Prime Minister and pretend to be Prime Minister on Prime Minister Turnbull on YouTube because they make a satirical video that is imitating government advertising? Or if someone dresses up like me and stands outside my well-signed posted office in Melbourne and someone passing by or online thinks they're me, are we seriously saying that they could be thrown in jail? Because that's how this bill reads. This bill would not be out of place in North Korea. If you make fun of the faultless, wise overlord of the universe, prepare to feel the crushing weight of the state as you are dragged away and imprisoned for your cheek and insolence. The comparison, Mr Speaker, reveals the true intent of the bill. This bill is really about power. Saul Alinsky in his Seminal Book Rules for Radicals notes that humor is essential for a successful technician. For the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule. This bill is about cracking down on dissent. We are seeing the government do this elsewhere with people who dare to speak out. They're going to potentially lose their funding or their charitable status, and now they're doing it here as well for anyone who dares impersonate the government for the purpose of satire or art. This is about avoiding criticism, avoiding scrutiny and avoiding ridicule. This bill reminds me of a petulant teenager who's had their feelings hurt and has just decided to lash out. And I also have a sneaking suspicion, Mr Speaker, that this bill would not be before us if some of the ridicule, the satire and the conduct directed at this government didn't hit so close to home as it has. To be ridiculed, you have to do something ridiculous. And not only is this legislation ridiculous, but the government trying to push it through is as well.