Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

It is an honour to speak after the member for Hasluck, who I regard as a friend and who is an example of the very things that he was talking about.

Racism begins with mindless hatred based on difference. No law can stop this irrational emotion, but we can stop people from harming each other because of it. Whether that harm is in the form of discriminating against others in employment and access to services or in undermining their sense of safety and belonging through racial vilification, the Racial Discrimination Act has provided those on the receiving end of racism with the means to fight back in a peaceful, legal and dignified Australian way.

The act was yet another example the lasting social reform enacted by the Whitlam government. It was Australia's first federal human rights legislation and secured equality before the law for all Australians. It was also a fine example of a national government taking the lead to set an example for all Australians. Since that time, all Australian states and territories have enacted similar legislation. Unfortunately, detractors of this act have frequently misunderstood it. As Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, said recently,

The Racial Discrimination Act … is not about punishing racism. Rather, the Act is about protecting people against prejudice.

Contrary to some public commentary, the legislation does not mean that people can be prosecuted and convicted under the law. Nor does it enable media outlets to be ‘shut down’ if they publish or broadcast racially offensive material. The legislation is more modest than this. It works not through coercion but through conciliation.

Over the almost forty years the Racial Discrimination Act has been in operation, more than 6 000 complaints have been resolved. Only a small number of complaints under the Act reach the courts: last year, it was only 3 per cent of complaints finalised by the Commission.

And the law is not only just about remedies. Its impact has been systemic.

Among the more vilified and misunderstood parts of the act is section 18C. Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act were introduced in response to recommendations of major inquiries, including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. These inquiries found that racial hatred and vilification caused psychological harm to their targets and reinforced other forms of discrimination and exclusion. They found that low-level behaviour like this softens the environment for more severe acts of harassment, intimidation and even violence by impliedly condoning such acts.

18C's purpose is to promote tolerance by bringing parties together to discuss and mediate the subject of their complaint and arrive at a conciliated and agreed outcome. Conciliation meetings that are resolved may require the following outcomes: an apology; an agreement to remove offensive material; systemic outcomes, such as changes to policies, procedures and training of staff or individuals; or sometimes even the payment of compensation. I was relieved when the current government dropped its plans to abolish 18C. A campaign led by Andrew Bolt, the Institute of Public Affairs and its prodigy Tim Wilson was dropped in the favour of the wall-to-wall community outrage. As the great philosopher of the 21st century, Isaiah Berlin, said:

… total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.

Section 18C reinforces pluralist Australia and complaints are resolved by a process of reconciliation. It worked very well under the well-known socialist former Prime Minister John Howard. It is worth quoting from last year's submission by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to the Abbott government's exposure draft, when the government attempted to change 18C:

In 2003, the Commonwealth - which was then under a Coalition government headed by Prime Minister John Howard – intervened in Toben v Jones to defend the validity of Part IIA of the RDA and specifically the use of the words “offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate” in section 18C. The Commonwealth argued “that acts done in public which are objectively likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate and which are done because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin are likely to incite other persons to racial hatred or discrimination or to constitute acts of racial hatred or discrimination”, and the court accepted that submission.

In the few seconds that I have got left to speak, I will say that it is very odd that in a situation where you are criticised for denying other people's liberties, as we were by the Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, that as a result of my criticisms of Andrew Bolt that were published in the Guardianexplaining that the act is about conciliating racial hatred and not persecuting Andrew Bolt; I was in fact criticising Justice Bromberg, who in my view unfairly and in overboard way found against Mr Bolt—I have been banned from the Andrew Bolt program. The great speaker for civil liberties and the man who insisted that this was all about persecuting free speech has banned me from that program! (Time expired)

See this speech in context