Australia, a young country, enjoys one of the world’s oldest continuing democratic constitutions.

Given that settlement dates from 1788 and that the decision by the people  to unite in one Federal Commonwealth under the Crown and the Constitution took effect on the first day of the twentieth century, this is an extraordinary achievement.

Those who laboured over the Constitution would be astounded, indeed appalled, by a potential disaster, a serious blow to the freedoms of all Australians which could well be struck by a ruling class that has wormed its way into the governance of this country.

This began with the apparently innocuous and hardly noticed appointment of a Senate Select Committee on ‘Information Integrity’ on ‘Climate Change and Energy’.

Instructed  to deliver its final report on 24 March 2026, the committee is to inquire into the prevalence and impact of ‘disinformation and misinformation’ relating not just to ‘climate change’ but also to ‘energy’.

The obvious problem is that the meaning of these two terms depends on whether or not one endorses the Albanese government’s draconian position on climate change, with five of the six members of the committee probably supporting this.

What we may call the ‘Albanese-Bowen climate doctrine’  is  an endorsement both of the theory of anthropogenic climate change approved by the IPCC, claiming human activities are the dominant cause of global warming and that, to counter this, a harsh solution  must be imposed on all Australians.

In fact, few people in the world are treated so harshly over climate change as Australians are by the Albanese government, whether or not they are believers.

This is especially curious when we note only one per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases come from Australia, with China emitting 29.2 per cent, the US 10.6 per cent,  and India and the EU 6.7 per cent each .

Notwithstanding this, Albanese government policy, expressed in legislative targets and executive decisions, remains among the harshest in the world.

Especially with the consequent but often denied  high cost of domestic energy, likely to last for years, the Albanese government’s policy has – and will long have – a major deleterious impact on the cost of living, the survival of business and farming and even such issues as security from bushfires.

Notwithstanding all this, the essential purpose of a select committee is to investigate and report.

To do this a committee must listen to concerned and informed witnesses.

There have not been many reports in the media about committee hearings, but one by  Vikki  Campion in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph on 14 November is worthy of an Australian equivalent of a Pulitzer.

She points out that while Senate inquiries routinely begin with a ritual pledge to treat witnesses with ‘dignity, fairness and respect’ while recognising the importance of ‘a free exchange of ideas’, when it comes to this committee, the latest hearings constituted   ‘this week’s farce’, one which could not have been a ‘more blatant betrayal of that vow’. She points out that witnesses should not be invited only to be ‘screeched at, berated and abused, accused’ and interrupted, some forty-seven times.

We may well wonder at the Senate appointing such a committee, just as we may ask who are these senators, servants of the Australian people, to treat honest citizens trying to do their best for the country and who give their time and who must find the means to come to some session of the committee to help it in its deliberations, all without seeking assistance from the public purse?

On Ms Campion’s report, perhaps the Senate should now appoint another select committee to inquire into the behaviour of certain senators.

The fact remains that five of the six members of the committee, whatever their party, seem committed to the present government’s  policy and presumably would see any divergence from it as either ‘disinformation’ or ‘misinformation’.

On the other hand, the sixth member, Senator Matt Canavan, while accepting that carbon dioxide has a warming effect on the atmosphere, argues that the evidence for high-end temperature increases is ‘much thinner’ and that the science is ‘less certain’ than it seemed previously.

That is, he is certainly not what is referred to, and dismissed as, a ‘denier’.

His role is important on the committee and especially in providing a strong dissent to what will be a predictable committee report written by public servants acting on the direction of the majority.

What is likely is that bountiful ‘disinformation and misinformation’ will be found despite the fact that Australia’s best-known geologist, Professor Emeritus Ian Plimer, will disagree.

On that, bear in mind that he knows more about this issue than any federal politician and probably more than the sum of them.

Indeed there would be few in the world as well informed.

What is most likely is the committee will propose that massive fines be imposed on social media platforms that do not remove ‘disinformation and misinformation’ found by some apparatchik to be on their offerings.

The crucial and dangerous objective behind all this will simply be to reduce the already small amount of genuine information on climate change getting to the public, mainly through the Murdoch newspapers, Sky, Nine Radio, certain think tanks and on social media.

Although the founders of this nation had good reason in the late-nineteenth century not to propose a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, it is now crucial that the first step in constitutional reform should be, as this column has long argued, an amendment to break the politicians’ monopoly on calling referendums and allow Australians to do what the Swiss can, initiate their own referendums.

And in the meantime, instead of creating biased committees, the Senate should at least pass the Bill presently before it for a referendum on free speech, however unlikely it is that the House will.

The governor-general would then be empowered under the Constitution to present the proposal direct to the people.

However unlikely that this would happen, it would at least draw attention to the issue.