We must ask questions of our leaders and the experts who advise them

The freedom to express oneself is a cornerstone of democracy. Protecting freedom of expression allows citizens to give and receive information, to engage in robust debate, and to make educated decisions about how to live their lives.

Never has this process of inquiry been so important. The decisions our governments have made in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic have intimately affected the lives of every Australian.

Politicians must be held accountable for the way they use that power and make decisions on our behalf. This is especially the case for public health orders, which have enormous ramifications on the economy and on society.

One year before the pandemic: Sydneysiders vote in the NSW election in March 2019.Credit: Janie Barrett

These decisions must be based on the best available scientific evidence and advice, which is open to scrutiny and debate in the scientific community and in the broader public sphere. Such analysis either satisfies the public that government decisions were sound, or allows for their rectification if the evidence proves to be flawed.

If anyone is going to embrace a debate that allows truth to collide with error, surely it is those involved in academic research. Public debate and inquiry are at the heart of academic freedom. The High Court acknowledged as much this month in the case involving James Cook University academic Peter Ridd.

That does not mean academics should be free from criticism - quite the opposite. They should be prepared to face at-times robust scrutiny over their ideas and arguments.

There is a problem, though, when critics prefer a speaker be silenced or removed from the public sphere rather than debated.

Today The Sun-Herald’s Matthew Knott writes about Dorian Abbot, an associate professor of geophysics in the US, whose high-profile lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( was cancelled following a backlash to a piece he co-wrote that challenged the progressive orthodoxy on diversity at American colleges.

Abbot’s ideas should be the subject of rigorous debate, and there is nothing to be gained from trying to shut debate down.

People wear masks in Melbourne in July last year.Credit: Eddie Jim

Scrutiny is critical to ensure our nation responds appropriately on all issues, especially COVID-19. For example, last week there was significant debate over a Burnet Institute study the Victorian government used to justify its mandatory mask policy.

While studies around the world have since reached similar conclusions on the efficacy of masks, some academics argue the methodology used to compile this particular report was flawed.

Almost two years into the pandemic, honest and open debate has at times given way to a sort of narrow-minded COVID tribalism that does little to progress our understanding of the issues involved.

These tribes can be partisan, loudly supporting or condemning actions taken by one political party but staying silent when another party does the same thing. It’s notable that NSW and Victoria, though run by different parties, have now reached more or less the same position on how to manage this stage of the pandemic.

There is great danger when people stop listening to each other or when science, which is meant to be independent, becomes politicised. As John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859 advocating against censorship, there is a “peculiar evil” in silencing an opinion, because the opinion is valuable even if it is wrong.

It is critical scientists remain true to the fundamental academic principle of open inquiry: that they express their opinions and listen and learn from each other. And it is critical all Australians keep asking questions of both their leaders and the experts who inform them.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.