Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Freedom of speech in Australia: inquiry into the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—On 8 November 2016, pursuant to section 7C of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Attorney-General referred to the committee the following matters for inquiry: firstly, whether the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, including sections 18C and 18D, impose unreasonable restriction on freedoms of speech; and, secondly, whether the complaints-handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission should be reformed.

As part of the inquiry, the committee received written submissions and held nine public hearings between 12 December 2016 and 20 February 2017—two in Canberra and one in every other state and territory capital city—to ensure that members of the public across the nation had fair opportunity to have input. In addition, where it was not possible for witnesses to appear at hearings in person, teleconferencing was used to facilitate participation.

The committee's report contains five chapters, the four substantive chapters of which address the four terms of reference for the inquiry. The report makes 22 recommendations aimed at improving the legislation and complaints-handling process. I am pleased to say that there has been a high level of bipartisanship between government and opposition members of the committee in arriving at recommendations in the report which present a range of pragmatic options to the government for consideration. These recommendations are designed to ensure that future complaints received have a reasonable prospect of success and are dealt with in a timely and cost-effective manner.

As a committee, we have received extensive and substantial evidence from submitters which demonstrates that the balance between protection from racial discrimination and freedom of expression is an issue about which many Australians have a keen interest. The issue of free speech as it relates to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has attracted significant public interest in recent years following a number of high-profile cases in which the mainstream public have become concerned that justice did not appear to have been done and that ordinary Australians were being penalised by law and the system which inflicted substantial costs and inordinate time delays on respondents to complaints concerning matters that did not appear to offend mainstream community standards. As I said in my first speech in this House, on 9 December 2013:

… as a nation we must address the issues of multiculturalism and reconciliation, whilst preserving the fundamental character and values of Australian identity. These complex social processes are by necessity two-way streets. There has to be a degree of give and take to promote a balanced approach to the competing goals of diversity, assimilation and integration in our emerging national identity. From my own experience I can attest to the value of—

free speech in—

interacting with people of different cultures and fully participating in my local community.

Much has changed in Australian society since section 18C was introduced to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995, during the Keating government, hence the need to revisit what words actually mean in contemporary society. In the current era of political correctness the threshold of what 'offends' has shifted dramatically. It has been reported in the press that there have been instances where celebrating Christmas by singing Christmas carols in public places has been deemed as being offensive to minorities.

Our objective is to practically simplify the law so that, where there is a dispute over cultural sensitivities in the workplace, in public, or in a social setting, ordinary Australians in the suburbs and towns will be able to resolve their differences with minimal input from the referee or umpire in a way that is affordable and timely. We are not talking about sheep stations; we are dealing with offences at the lower end of the spectrum of 'insult' and 'offend', which do happen, occasionally, in the course of everyday social interactions. From a common-sense perspective, what we are trying to achieve is the protection of ethnic and racial groups from harm and detriment, but it is not the role of the government to police petty social misdemeanours.

Witnesses at the hearings gave comprehensive evidence concerning their experiences of racial discrimination in Australia, including a range of anecdotal evidence. Aspects of the evidence were compelling and distressing, including accounts of racial discrimination in terms of employment, access to accommodation, verbal abuse, objects being posted in the mail, physical altercations and inappropriate material. These acts should be universally condemned, as there is no place in Australian society for this racist behaviour. In fact there exists, a raft of legislation at a state and federal level which make these acts illegal. For the purposes of the inquiry, however, many of these matters fall outside the terms of reference and scope.

The inquiry viewed freedom of speech as it relates to constructive criticism and open debate in the context of a workplace, social or public setting where it ought to be permissible to discuss culturally sensitive matters in the normal course of business. Our duty is to govern for all Australians, and that includes mainstream Australians who feel that their right to free speech is being infringed by political correctness and the overzealous application of laws such as section 18C. Mainstream Australians deserve the same rights as racial and ethnic minorities. It is important that the law does not promote reverse discrimination.

As a migrant of Eurasian heritage, I see the need to protect ethnic and racial minorities on one hand but also the duty to protect mainstream Australians from situations of reverse discrimination. As I said in my maiden speech, multiculturalism and reconciliation are two-way streets, of give and take, with neither group taking advantage of or having a lend of the other.   The sentiment in the proverbial pub often is resentment that sometimes ethnic minorities use the provisions of the law to take things too far. Our challenge is to make the law fair to all.

From observation, those involved in the human rights industry are generally extremely well educated, academic and intellectual. It is fine to have complex legal concepts and precedents, but there is a disconnect in understanding with the proverbial person in the pub or suburbs. The operation of the Racial Discrimination Act needs to take into account the context of the ordinary person in a typical setting. In giving evidence, Australian Human Rights Commission President, Gillian Triggs, used the example of 'the typical person on the Manly ferry'. However, unfortunately, that person is not commonly found in the rest of Australia. How will a regular mainstream person of average education in a suburban setting understand or interpret the law?

The government needs to ensure that resources are being directed at preventing material racial discrimination and serious conduct resulting in harm, violence or incitement to violent acts, not cartoons and trivial matters. Many members of the public mistakenly believe that if section 18C is amended it will permit abusive and vilifying behaviour based on race, not taking into account that there are already other legal protections in force against incitement to violence, harassment or intimidation.

I would like to thank deputy chair, the member for Moreton, and members of the committee: the members for Berowra, Brand, McMillan; and Senators Paterson, Reynolds, Moore, Brown and McKim, for the collegiate way they have worked together during the inquiry, and for their specialist technical skills. I also thank our committee Secretary, Toni Dawes, and the team of secretariat staff who went above and beyond the call of duty, working long hours to meet the reporting deadline. I encourage my fellow members, the government and others to examine the committee's report. With these comments, I commend the committee's report into freedom of speech in Australia to the House.

See this speech in context