Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Gellibrand. Firstly, I would like to make it crystal clear that I am sure everyone in this House agrees that both racism and any form of religious intolerance is absolutely abhorrent. It is a gravely divisive social force. We in this parliament here and at all levels of government need to do everything we can to eliminate all forms of racism and religious intolerance in this country.

I am sure I concur with all the points raised by all the members speaking so far. But there are a few points I do disagree with other members on this side of the chamber. Certainly we have, I believe, one of the most wonderfully racially tolerant nations in the world. For those who have had the opportunity to travel around the world, certainly we have problems here in Australia. But when I compare the racial harmony that we have in our country to many parts of the rest of the world, we are second to none. We have a proud democratic nation with freedoms where people from all countries of the world have come to our society. They have been able to assimilate, to fit in and also retain parts of their culture and their heritage to make our nation a wonderful place.

We do still have problems with racial intolerance in this country, and we saw in the newspapers this morning an appalling act of violence and racial extremism against a gentleman in Melbourne. Acknowledging we still have problems, the question should be: what is the best antidote going forward? Should we continue with attempts at government regulation and censorship like section 18C or should we actually encourage free and open speech and open debate? The current section 18C provides, it is unlawful that:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person …

In my opinion, the words 'offend' and 'insult' go too far. Rather than government censorship and sweeping racism and religious intolerance under the carpet, and allowing it to fester, I believe that the best way to defeat it is to bring it out in the open. Let us defeat it with free speech. Let us to defeat it with open debate. I believe that is what would be far better for our country.

When we talk about section 18C, it is disappointing to hear all sides of the debate trying to work out what is the best way to defeat racism, but to hear those in favour of 18C maintaining the current levels of censorship and allowing racial intolerance to be swept under the carpet actually attack those in favour of repeal and somehow allowing racist speech is very, very disappointing.

The other part of this motion refers to the Human Rights Commission. It is correct that the Human Rights Commission plays an important part in administering the act. Therefore, it is important that the general public has confidence, trust and faith in the commissioners on the Human Rights Commission. It is regrettable that the public has lost some of that faith, I think, due to two aspects.

Firstly, there was the Human Rights Commission recommendation to give $350,000 so-called compensation to a gentleman who actually bashed his pregnant wife to death with a child's bicycle. This gentleman had a long history of numerous assaults, property damage, wilful damage, obstructing police and drug possession. A psychologist said that this gentleman had a persistent pattern of abnormal emotions and behaviour, and was at high risk of reoffending, and that he continues to use threats to get what he wants. This is a person that the Human Rights Commission recommended be given $350,000 worth of taxpayers' money. Decisions like that undermine the Human Rights Commission.

The other area where the Human Rights Commission have lost some of the public's faith is to do with the timing of their inquiry into children in detention. No government wants to see children in detention. But the fact that that inquiry was originally scheduled under the previous Labor government and was postponed, delayed or held back and done during this government's time actually harmed the reputation of the Human Rights Commission.

See this speech in context