Dissenting report from Senator Ralph Babet
1.1This dissenting report is submitted by Senator Ralph Babet, in response to the findings of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.
1.2While I recognise the importance of ensuring the public receives accurate information, I strongly oppose any effort that seeks to restrict lawful opinion, debate, and criticism in matters of climate policy.
1.3Science, by its nature, is never settled. It evolves through scrutiny, dissent, and rigorous testing. Suppressing alternate opinions on this particular branch of science in the name of combatting ‘misinformation’ undermines both democracy and scientific inquiry.
1.4The direction of this inquiry, framed by the terms such as ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘astroturfing,’ suggests a preordained narrative: that disagreement regarding climate change is illegitimate and must be silenced. I reject this approach.
1.5Science is not strengthened by censorship. It thrives in an open forum where views can be debated. When one side of the debate has their opinions labelled as ‘misinformation,’ they imply certainty. But no scientific field, and certainly not climate science, is immune to error or evolution.
1.6Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently said that ‘Science is not a source of authority. It’s a methodology. It’s based on challenge.’
1.7The Clintel Declaration, recently published and signed by hundreds of scientists and academics, also suggests that climate science is very much evolving, and is not beyond question or debate. Submission 223 to this inquiry agrees with this notion, stating that ‘Scientific information is a developing process of the latest research, and is never settled nor determined by consensus’.
1.8If power is granted to the state to determine what constitutes misinformation, it is inevitable that legitimate dissent or debating points will be caught in the net.
1.9There is growing pressure to equate skepticism about anthropogenic climate change with the spread of harmful misinformation. This is an authoritarian impulse that threatens the foundations of a free society. We must be crystal clear: disagreement with prevailing climate orthodoxy is not misinformation or disinformation. It is political opinion and scientific inquiry – both of which must be protected in any society, including ours.
1.10There is no single incontestable truth about the scale, scope, or threat of climate change. The Australian public has the right to hear a range of views, including from those who believe the danger is overstated.
1.11What is obvious from the many submitters and witnesses advocating for climate action and action against misinformation/disinformation, is that they are relying on external experts and agencies to have gotten the climate science right. It seems that many of these individuals, have been influenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position.
1.12Consider the words of the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics, Professor John. F. Clauser, who said in 2023: ‘… in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation’ and also ‘Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience … there is no real climate crisis.’
1.13Professor Clauser is not the first Nobel prize winner to say such a thing, or to reject irresponsible climate alarmism and the rush towards expensive renewable energy. The Clintel Declaration – a document that rejects the politicisation and alarmism of contemporary climate science – was recently published on 25 October 2025. It contains over 2000 signatures of scientists, academics and industry leaders, including Professor Clauser’s, as well as 186 distinguished signatories from Australia.
1.14 To say that any opposing views on the so-called climate emergency are invalid or ‘misinformation’ – because apparently ‘the science is settled’ –is disingenuous and has the veneer of political or financially motivated bias.
1.15A recurring theme across 39 separate submissions was concern not just about speech suppression, but about the impacts of renewable energy projects on regional communities and the environment. Many of these submissions raised consistent points: communities feel voiceless, consultation processes are tokenistic, and the environmental costs of large-scale wind, solar, and transmission projects are being ignored.
1.16The vast majority of the evidence and assertions throughout this inquiry, and in the subsequent report, presumes a solid and unambiguous definition of misinformation or disinformation. As Dr Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner (AHRC) said in the 17 February 2026 hearing:
‘... the fundamental challenge we come up with is: how do you define misinformation and disinformation for the purposes of the law? There are many working definitions. People kind of understand what you're meaning in a vernacular sense, but there's no accepted international definition of what we mean by mis- and disinformation, and putting it in legislation in a form that is specific enough to ensure that we're having an approach that doesn't disproportionately capture a wide range of speech that isn't strictly mis- and disinformation is incredibly challenging and is something where we've struggled to find examples that really do meet that mark. That definitional problem is a really significant hurdle to overcome.’
1.17The Australian Government has not been able to clearly articulate how its expenditure will affect the climate in measurable terms. When asked to quantify the impact of billions of dollars of climate-related spending, responses defer to international reports, models, and projections rather than presenting clear cost-benefit analysis or expected outcomes. No definitive or measurable results are provided.
1.18Chapter 3 of the Committee’s report devotes much time and space dealing with the many and varied organisations and groups that are supposedly already engaging in misinformation and disinformation. Without a solid, clear, working definition of mis/disinformation, how can any of these organisations be accused of engaging in this activity? There is still too much about this situation that is vague and ill-defined.
1.19Much of the remainder of the report deals with these supposed ‘bad-faith actors’ and the mechanisms to address them, all the while resting on the shaky premises that the science is settled, and that mis/disinformation is clear and unequivocal. The lack of a solid foundational definition, defined in the Australian context, for ‘climate misinformation’ undermines the vast majority of this report
1.20Point 1 of the Committee’s Terms of Reference seeks to explore the prevalence and motivation behind misinformation. But the very definition of misinformation is disputed. If the government defines it too broadly, it risks sweeping up reasonable dissent.
1.21Mr Daniel Wild, Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs agrees with this sentiment, as he stated at the 12 November 2025 public hearing:
‘Misinformation laws can only be enforced by some kind of centralised governing entity, be it tech companies or government themselves, or tech companies at the behest of governments. This requires an adjudication of what is and what is not misinformation, which therefore requires an official definition of the truth and for that definition to then be enforced on the public.’
1.22The danger is that any statement that contradicts government policy, or that casts doubt on popular climate narratives, will be labelled misinformation. This is a slippery slope to censorship.
1.23Mr Wild agrees:
‘I think that what the committee seeks to do with regard to misinformation is a smokescreen for censorship. We saw that with the government's misinformation laws that didn't even make it to the floor of the Senate in the last term. Certainly, that's one of the concerns that we and many Australians have when terms like misinformation and disinformation are used. As I outlined in the submission and my opening statement, because those terms are vague, they become defined by a central governing body, which is then used to censor debate.’
1.24In the 17 February 2026 hearing, on this topic, Dr Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner for AHRC said the following:
‘The first is to recognise that setting up government or any individual body as the sole arbiter of truth on these matters is inherently problematic. The second is to recognise—and this was one of the objections that we had to an earlier draft of the mis- and disinformation law—that government itself can potentially be a source of misinformation. It's important to think through those issues when you're looking at any responses that put government at the centre, to ensure that we're not creating a situation where misinformation can potentially be reinforced without having any alternative channels to address that or setting up government as the sole arbiter of truth. Again, I would absolutely emphasise that that's not intended as a reflection on any existing government. It's a principled hypothetical position.’
1.25A number of submissions raised objections to the inquiry’s premise and implications. These submissions speak directly to the concerns of Australians who feel this inquiry is being used to suppress dissent rather than protect truth. Some of these are represented below:
Submission #5 (Australian Environment Foundation) noted: ‘The real misinformation on climate and energy policy in Australia stems from government sources.’ It warned against conflating dissent with danger and called for transparent data sharing and cost-benefit analyses. Not censorship.
Submission #42 (Mark Ptolemy) stated: ‘The true test of a democracy is not whether you agree with prevailing opinions, but whether you are free to disagree with them.’ He argued that suppressing speech on climate change or associated energy initiatives harms public trust and erodes our democratic foundations.
Submission #55 (Anonymous) highlighted a chilling real-world example: ‘I lost my job for expressing reservations about Net Zero targets at a company strategy day. No one asked if I was right. They just asked who let me speak.’
Submission #101 (Name Withheld) made a compelling argument against government-decided ‘truth’: ‘If the government gets to define misinformation, it will define it in line with its policies. That is not science – it’s propaganda.’
Submission #231 (Dr Bill Johnston): ‘...misinformation and disinformation’ arises not from fringe actors, but from how climate data is handled, adjusted and presented.’
1.26Together, these submissions reflect deep unease with how this inquiry was set up and conducted, and a common plea has emerged from submissions disagreeing with the main premise of it: let Australians speak freely on issues that affect their future, their livelihoods, and their country.
1.27In addition, many of the submissions opposing the inquiry argue that the government and its agencies are responsible for mis/disinformation from time to time.
1.28Point 6 of the Committee’s Terms of Reference addresses the effectiveness of parliamentary and regulatory responses. In the interest of freedom of communication, proposed changes that increase the power of regulators or departments to adjudicate truth in matters of political and scientific debate must be opposed.
1.29Public trust in institutions risks being eroded when they are seen to be suppressing alternative views. The role of parliament should be to safeguard freedom of expression – not to restrict it.
(a)No regulatory or legislative changes should be made that limit the right of individuals, organisations, or media to express views on climate science or policy.
(b)The government must explicitly protect dissenting opinions under law, even where such opinions challenge popular opinion.
(c)The government is often wrong. Neither the government or its agencies should position itself as the sole arbiter or scientific truth.
(d)Parliament and the public service must ensure they focus on the right of Australians to express their views on all matters, including climate science.
Senator Ralph Babet
United Australia Party
Senator for Victoria
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments