Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In December last year my parliamentary colleagues in the Joint Standing Committee on Human and Rights and I began a series of public hearings, visiting every capital city of the nation and tasked with two things: to examine the operation of part 2A of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and whether it imposes unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and, secondly, to look at whether the complaints-handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission should be reformed.

My colleague the member for Moreton has spoken to the report of the committee and, like him, I reiterate that this committee has not recommended any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. That is because there was not overwhelming support for change demonstrated by the submissions to the inquiry, nor among the members of the committee.

The committee report has recommended adjustments to the AHRC Act, alongside an increased focus on education, with the intention that such efforts would prevent drawn-out conflicts that serve only to cause pain and injury to both complainants and respondents. I think this is sensible reform.

As a new parliamentarian, it was a revelation to witness the fortitude of people as they committed to speak before a federal parliamentary committee, as part of the formality and the unintentionally-intimidating atmosphere. People attending the hearings spoke about two things—being able to live free from discrimination and being able to live a life of free expression. Sadly, I could not read all of the thousands of submissions to what has been referred to as the 'parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech'. But after reading hundreds of submissions and after hearing from and asking questions of many witnesses directly, it soon became clear that this inquiry was about more than freedom of speech.

It became apparent very quickly that people are concerned about the impact that possible changes to the Racial Discrimination Act will have on them, their families and the wider community. I know that I have enjoyed a privileged life compared with many of those who made submissions or who appeared in front of the committee. I have never felt the sting of racism; I have never felt restrained in my freedom of speech; I have never decided to keep quiet every day at work, or at school or university lest anyone make me a target of their hurtful words—words that might be unintentionally or, sadly, deliberately hurtful. Because of this, I have never needed the protections offered by the Racial Discrimination Act. But many people do.

The inquiry heard from both individuals and groups, and despite the impression one might get from reporting in The Australian, it was not a forum dominated by academic lawyers, barristers and solicitors, former judges, former and current Human Rights Commissioners, cartoonists and journalists—useful though their contributions were. I can honestly say that the process of the inquiry was better than the broadsheet's reporting, and it reached out widely to our brilliantly diverse Australian community. We heard from Indigenous groups, multicultural associations and representatives from older migrant groups, including from the Jewish, Greek and Chinese communities. Particularly admirable and inspiring was the strength of conviction of those representing the Jewish community of Australia. This community, one that has seen the worst of racism in this world, has actively sought to protect the rights of other minorities in the Australian community. All of these people and groups took the time to write to and speak with the committee. They took the time to defend the small yet important protections that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act provides, and others provided thoughtful and constructive contributions on how the act could be amended. I thank all those who participated in this inquiry.

I am of the firm opinion that it is not in anyone's interests, and certainly not in the national interest, to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. This is an act—and a protection against racial vilification, in the form of sections 18C and 18D—that has served this nation effectively and quietly since its enactment in 1996. It should be left to its efficient devices. Fewer than 100 disputes in the Federal Court in 25 years, and thousands of disputes resolved in private conciliation, speak for themselves. It is true that some people have suffered in the administration of the RDA. I acknowledge their hardships, just as I acknowledge the pain and hardships of the thousands of victims of racism across Australia who suffer every single day of their lives. We would all like the law to be perfect. We would like every law to be perfect. But seeking perfection at the price of diminishing protections provided to the vulnerable is not worth the price.

It is well and good to theorise about freedom of speech, but this must be done from a position that is inclusive of all members of society. Merely considering the views of the most privileged in society on how they feel they are oppressed in their freedom of speech is absurd. This is so when you consider their voices in the media, their access to the media, their ownership of the media. It is especially absurd when you meet and speak with committee witnesses representing multicultural and Indigenous groups from across the country and hear the lived experience of racism. I want to highlight something Dr Jackie Huggins, a co-convenor of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, said to the committee:

Particularly for Aboriginal people since the 1967 referendum right through to the Racial Discrimination Act, there have been some protections around the call out of racism. We have felt very much that section 18C should not be changed or tampered with, because it is very much speech and beliefs and opinions that are quite hateful and unfounded, and it does hurt very deeply. It can scar people for the rest of their lives, and sometimes Aboriginal people just wear it as a second skin because we are so used to it—so used to the call out and what we are being subjected to. Unfortunately, it is just one of those things we live with, like chronic diseases and dying 10 years earlier than other Australians et cetera. But, for a very small minority group, we still believe that we are here and we have survived, and we just live every day with racism.

Dr Huggins was not alone in expressing the sentiment that victims of racism wear a second skin, be they Indigenous or of ethnic origins. The words of Dr Huggins have affected me deeply, and I thank her for them.

As a white Australian who sits in this parliament and who participated in this committee and this inquiry, I have felt very sad at times that this parliament and the government of this country should require people to defend, in written submissions and before us in person, the protections offered to them under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Is this what we do now? If this is what we do, I think we should really review our priorities. As a witness in Darwin reflected, it is outrageous that this parliament is having this conversation about lessening protections against racism, when multiple studies show we have a serious race relations problems in this country. Ms Penelope Taylor commented:

There are thousands of incidents every day that could become a case but are not being reported because people are marginalised, disempowered or voiceless.

Why aren't we talking about these people? That is my question. Why aren't we talking about the voiceless in our society? I do not want to downplay the importance of freedom of speech in an open and democratic society, but I think some leaders in our community could do with getting out a little bit more and getting some kind of grip on the reality of racism in Australia.

As a country, we need to be a bit more generous of spirit to those in our community who take comfort knowing Australia has a law that protects them, even though they do not necessarily choose to enforce it and even though that law might not be perfect. The debate on freedom of speech in Australia is at best one-sided. At all times it seems to me to be a debate among elites with all the voice they could wish for and those who either fight to be heard or stay quiet for fear of being demonised because of their race or ethnicity. I hope we can work together to change this imbalance into the future.

My work on this inquiry has been both difficult and rewarding. It has been difficult to hear people's lived experiences of discrimination. It has been rewarding to hear witnesses tell their stories. The legal debate has also been enlightening. The committee worked together these past weeks, and I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their equal commitment to this inquiry. I acknowledge the member for Berowra, who is here today as well. I enjoyed our company and the conversations we had. I thank, in particular, the secretariat of the committee for their dedication and commitment to the complex task they managed with the utmost professionalism. The work you do—and, I must add, that of the colleagues who assist all other committees in this place—is essential to the operation of the parliament, and I thank you for it. I also thank the parliament for this opportunity.

See this speech in context