Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Those in this place and outside of it who call to water down Australia's protections against racial hate speech are much more concerned with privilege and entitlement than they are with freedom of speech. But do not take my word for it. That case was very clearly made out by the previous speaker, the former commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission, the member for Goldstein, in an extraordinary contribution that delved deep into his psyche and its parallel universe and did not explore the reality of Australian communities today—in particular, the realities experienced by many of the people I represent who are members of the culturally and linguistically diverse communities that make this country such a great country to live in. These are people who, all too often, are diminished by the actions of others—people who depend on leadership in this place, leadership by political leaders, but also on lawmaking that respects them and their culture and their background. For the whole time I have been in this place, this has been a hurtful and divisive, and often dishonest, debate in this parliament and in the Australian community.

It is interesting that we stand here debating this today, on 1 March, because this is a day which is supposed to be about zero tolerance for disharmony. I guess in one respect we see a marker there, in that, through three years of hurt and division—and indeed, for the government, distraction—we have seen two things emerge. One is that today, as back in 2013, we have Liberal and National party members hopelessly divided over this issue, as evidenced in the debate around the report and as evidenced in the conversation that continues around its reception and the steps that we may take beyond it. But, more substantively of course, we now see what we have said all along—that no case can be made fairly to change 18C and 18D. That is what we know.

We have had three years of division fostered by this government, whether led by the member for Warringah or kind of cobbled together by his successor, the member for Wentworth. Three years—and throughout that time, in the Scullin electorate there has been really deep concern around these proposals. I was so pleased that, in the last parliament, the member for Isaacs came and spent time with me and a range of communities in the suburb of Thomastown to work through concerns at public meetings. As the member for Bruce put it, in the meetings that he attended there was a unanimity of purpose, but also a concern—a concern that has been expressed by many people on this side of the House as we have had the interminable debates around these issues.

I am very pleased that the member for Watson, the shadow minister, is here, because he has made this point over and over again, and it has not been effectively responded to. I would submit it has not been effectively responded to because it cannot be. That is to pose this question: what exactly is it that these people want to be allowed to say that they cannot say now? How do they wish to be able to describe people who are different from them that they cannot do today, and why would they choose to do so? If I may go beyond the member for Watson's question of why they would choose to do so, why would they choose to treat some Australians as somehow less than others? Why would they choose to tear up more than 40 years of the Racial Discrimination Act and 25 years of very effective protections that have served Australia well?

When we talk about how they have served Australia well, it is important to think about the wider context within which we are conducting this debate. It is a context where there are divisive forces beyond this parliament that are seeking to turn Australians against each other. I am so proud of Australians' support for multiculturalism, but there are concerning signs. If you have regard to the work that the Scanlon Foundation and the Lowy Institute have been doing, we show that in communities across Australia there is strong support for multiculturalism, but the support is softening as licence has been given for people to treat people differently on the basis of their racial background. These are concerns that resonate deeply in the communities that I am so proud to represent. That is why I made a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry, as did the member for Goldstein—because standing up for the diverse communities of Melbourne's northern suburbs, and indeed the diverse communities that make up Australia today more generally, is something that is important to me and is something that is very important to my constituents.

I suspect the member for Goldstein may have spent some more time on his submission than I did; I did not make a very long submission, because there is not really a lot to say. If we believe that all Australians are equal, we also recognise that they should be treated equally. And anyone who has had any opportunity to represent any part of Australia in public life knows that there are forces—too often fuelled with their own privilege, with their own sense of entitlement—who seek to use the power that they have to push down others and to divide communities. That is the ill that these provisions recognise. Recognising that racism is something that is completely unacceptable, it sets a standard—a standard at law that should also be a standard that we all practice in this place. So in considering this report let us all be mindful to stand up for all Australians, regardless of how we treat the specifics of the report that is before us.

In turning to the report, it is a pretty weighty document, so I acknowledge that many members put a great deal of work into this. The recommendations, in significant part, are worthy of adoption, but there are a couple of things that need to be said. Firstly—of course, they are not novel. I will turn briefly to the remarks of the member for Berowra in this regard in a moment. They are process-driven changes that do not go to the substance. They do not go to any of the soaring rhetoric of the so-called freedom-of-speech lobbyists. Freedom-of-speech lobbyists are unconcerned about other restrictions on freedom of speech, such as those contained in employment arrangements, and they are certainly not worried about the tort of defamation. In fact the evidence is that they are pretty keen on that. They are pretty keen on those constraints but, again, this is a debate not about freedom of speech; it is a debate about privilege and power.

The member for Berowra talked about the recommendations being groundbreaking. Really? If they are so groundbreaking, why was he not paying attention to Commissioner Triggs when she was making the case for most of these changes? Let's reflect on how Commissioner Triggs has been treated by this government—in the most appalling manner. The member also talked about his aspiration—and there is no doubt that it is a genuine one—to end the division, but I cannot share his confidence. I do not think that this debate ends here, I really do not.

The member for Bruce touched on the weird experience we had, sitting in a coalition party room debate. I said 'experience'; I do not think I could call this a privilege! But the weirdest bit of the whole thing was not that we were witnesses to it, it was that we appeared to have greater insight into the operation of the coalition party room than the poor member for Berowra!

This is not over. Senator Paterson has made it clear and other speakers in this debate may also make it clear that this is not over. The fight to stand up for diversity and the fight to stand for reasonable and proven protections against racist hate speech does not end today, or add any such time that the government changes administrative or legislative arrangements around the operation of these provisions. I should be very clear—and I know that you will share this aspiration, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—that on this side of the House we stand with a singular resolve: to stand with and for those communities, however long it takes.

This has been a disturbing experience in Australian public life. The hysteria with which some of the advocates for reform of 18C and 18D have carried on their aggressive agenda has been quite extraordinary. They refer to the 'chilling' effect. I cannot think of any public policy issue that has received a more disproportionately large coverage in relation to its practical, positive impact than this one. The Australian newspaper must have been licensed by the IPA, and I hope the IPA have done well out of the content they have provided.

But, in ending my remarks on this issue, this has been a debate about privilege and entitlement. It has also been a debate about power. We stand for power to be distributed equally in Australia, and never to be determined on the basis of someone's racial or cultural background.

See this speech in context