George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Regardless of the report before us, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is nothing more than political correctness enshrined in the law limiting freedom of speech. The question for everyone in this parliament, in this institution of democracy, is this: do you support freedom of speech? Do you support the individual's right to say what they think when it causes or incites no physical or reputational harm to another individual? This is one of the bedrocks of democracy. If your answer is yes to that question then you must support the repeal of section 18C or, at least, the removal of the terms 'insult', 'humiliate' and 'offend' from section 18C.

How can those terms—insult, humiliate and offend— even be considered in a legal setting when they are so subjective? How do we judge this? What may offend you might not offend me. It comes back to the key question: do you support the individual's right to say what they think when it causes or incites no physical or reputational harm to another individual? If you do not support that statement, then just be honest and say you do not support freedom of speech, because that is what it comes down to.

We have just heard from the shadow Attorney-General. I will tell him why the process is a problem, because even the process itself limits freedom of speech. It scares people into not speaking out on issues that they otherwise would. Let's just look at what happened to the cartoonist Bill Leak who was hit with an 18C complaint about his, yes, confronting cartoon highlighting a very serious issue of the care of Aboriginal children. Even the fact that it was able to be put up in this kangaroo court process damaged his reputation and cost him money. That alone is enough to stop people from speaking out. In his own submission to the inquiry, Bill Leak shared these concerns. He said:

I think that that hypothetical person working for some magazine that might be online—goodness knows—or whatever but does not have the backing of an organisation like News Corp is going to look at what happened to me and say: 'That bloke really got into a lot of trouble for telling the truth. I better not tell it myself.' If that is not a dampener on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I do not know what is. To me, I think it is extremely sinister.

This situation is broader than 18C. We have a problem across the nation where antidiscrimination laws in different states and antidiscrimination policies by government departments are silencing people. Look at the situation with Archbishop Julian Porteous in Hobart—he was hit with an antidiscrimination complaint because a marriage booklet was distributed by the Catholic Church outlining Catholic Church policy to the people of a Catholic faith. A Catholic priest or a Catholic bishop should have every right to discuss and explain matters of the Catholic faith to his flock—or to anyone else, for that matter. What is the intention of all this antidiscrimination stuff? Is it to shut up religious leaders?

Another example of an organisation's antidiscrimination policies being used against an employee is that of the Department of Defence against an Army major, Bernard Gaynor, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know Bernie Gaynor. He spoke out about the ADF having a float at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. He believed it was politicising the ADF, because the major focus of the mardi gras now is opposition to government policy on same-sex marriage. Gaynor was charged with offences. He was investigated for breaching Defence policy, and every investigation turned out in his favour. Despite that, his appointment with the ADF was terminated. He fought a court case on that dismissal, and the court found in his favour. In that ruling, Justice Buchanan said:

Freedom of political communication was burdened … [His] conduct involved the expression of political opinion …

As expressed in The Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece in this case, the judge found that being sacked for holding personal political views was too fundamental a right.

That is the point of this whole debate—freedom of political communication and expression is a fundamental right which is enshrined in the Constitution. It is a fundamental right, actually, for all Liberal and National Party members here. It is enshrined in both of our political parties, which make up the coalition government of which we are members. The National Party constitution states that one of the party's objectives is the maintenance of democracy and liberty, and the Liberal Party clearly expresses this belief when it states:

We believe in the most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy—the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

There is absolutely and simply no way that a government made up of the Liberal and National parties, which uphold those values, can leave this law untouched. Section 18C needs to be repealed. The words 'humiliate', 'offend' and 'insult' need to be removed. We need to strike that blow for freedom of speech and against this nonsensical political correctness machine that is around Australia. Let's start by getting rid of 18C, and let's start working on all these antidiscrimination laws in states and in government departments as well.

Sitting suspended from 12 : 58 to 16 : 00

See this speech in context