Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I would like to say that this is an issue where fair minds will differ. This is an issue that reasonable people will have different views on. I am a proud member of the Liberal National Party and a proud member of my local community on the Sunshine Coast. Like the people of Fisher and in many other parts of Australia, I believe in free speech and, as such, I welcome this report for the opportunity it provides to address this issue—hopefully, once and for all.

On the substance of the report's recommendations, for the most part I agree with them. On the whole, the report's recommendations represent rational and much-needed reforms, particularly to the complaints process. On the central issue of this report, we have heard a lot of claims from members opposite today. Contrary to almost every Labor speech we have heard today, this report does not say that no case has been made for change to section 18C itself. It does not recommend that the status quo is acceptable, and nor does it recommend that we do not act. The report demonstrates that opinion among the committee members was divided on the best way forward. The question remains to be decided in this House and in the parliament, and I hope to have the opportunity to speak on legislation for a review of section 18C soon.

This debate is about one of the most fundamental principles that underlie our parliamentary democracy, but it is also about people—ordinary Australians in all of our electorates. In our privileged situation in this place, protected by the conventions that support the vigour of our debates, we must always remember what our constituents are telling us. They do not enjoy the privileged protections that we do when sitting in this place. They face more than the howls and jeers of members opposite when they have something to say. I know that there are many people in my electorate of Fisher who feel like they cannot speak their minds. In our pubs and clubs, our RSLs, our cafes and even in people's homes, my constituents have told me that they do not feel able to express their opinions freely. Many have expressed their concerns to me. Others have written to me; letters and emails on section 18C come into my office in a wave of frustration and concern. On how many other issues can we say that our constituents always know exactly the act and the specific provision that we are talking about here? This is not a fringe issue for the people of Fisher. This law goes to the heart of what I consider to be a 'Canberra bubble' culture and a left-wing elite that seems to refuse to listen to ordinary Australians or take what they care about seriously.

These people in my electorate are not extremists. They do not want to hurt anyone, they have no intention of humiliating their fellow Australians and they do not mean to insult or offend them. We hear a lot from members opposite in this debate about protecting Australians who are not part of the privileged elite. Well, the people who come to me to tell me that they feel oppressed by this law come from every background and every walk of life. Many of them are older Australians, many live in regional areas and many are doing it tough. This law does nothing to protect them.

Around the country, and particularly in Queensland, we know that some of our people are feeling disenfranchised. Some of them are turning to so-called 'outside' groups who seem to be able to say what they feel prevented from saying themselves.

We are now reaping what we have sown in Australia. With the activist stance taken by some in the Human Rights Commission, by some members opposite and by overzealous campaigners in recent years, we are facing a fracturing in our society that comes from the left-wing elite enforcement of an extremist ideology. If you have a different view to me—I am not reflecting that on you, Madam Deputy Speaker!—a view that does not accord with the Green-Labor metropolitan so-called consensus, then you can expect to be howled down and condemned as a racist. You can expect to be the subject of ridicule, abuse and even threats of violence. This is not to mention the inordinate cost of mounting a legal defence.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act as it stands has not caused this attitude: I accept that, but it enables it. For a great many Australians it represents the legal force of a culture that is alien and hostile to their values. Australians expect, deserve and demand the freedom to express their opinions. People in my electorate believe that they cannot do so with this law in its current form. Their belief is entirely, in my view, understandable.

The highest-profile cases under section 18C represent only the most visible part of a growing tide of complaints. A recent right-to-information request made by the Institute of Public Affairs in 2016 showed that over the previous six years 832 separate complaints had been made under section 18C. Four hundred and forty had come in the previous financial year. It is a nonsense to suggest that there has been a dramatic explosion in the amount of criminal hate speech happening in Australia in those recent years. What has changed is the attitude of the people who are making and assessing these complaints. This tide needs to be turned. This law needs to be changed. Personally, I would favour the repeal of section 18C in its entirety.

However, I understand and respect the fact that there is a diversity of views in our own community. I know that we need to strike a balance that appreciates the strength of feeling on both sides of this debate and that upholds both the right of free speech and the necessity of protecting all Australians from genuine harm. In finding this compromise we should return to the first principles of the law. In any free country it must be clear and unambiguous; that is, we must know what is lawful and what is not. The liberties and livelihoods of our citizens cannot be at the mercy of subjective or debatable prohibitions. It cannot be the case that an individual's retrospective or personal feelings are the test by which a person is condemned. This, more than any other, is the principle that is undermined by section 18C as it currently stands, and this is the flaw that we must repair.

We should amend section 18C to remove the words, 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate'. These tests are fundamentally subjective. The suggestion to replace these words with 'harass' has some merit, particularly if it is expressly defined in the act. Amended in this way, the legislation would continue to provide protections for all Australians from the real harm that can come from speech. All Australians would enjoy protection from those who would seek to incite violence, from those who would harass and from those who would intimidate on the basis of ethnic origin. But under this amended legislation, all Australians would also be protected from being harassed, intimidated and prosecuted at the whim of another on the basis of their opinions.

We would have made it clear that this country upholds freedom of speech and that our people need never be afraid to raise an issue or to express a view. We would have sent an unambiguous signal to our constituents that we want to hear their voices and that we will listen to them speak.

The American abolitionist and civil rights campaigner Frederick Douglass said in 1860 that to suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of those who hear as well as the speaker. As Douglass knew, our political process can only succeed and deliver the best outcomes for all Australians of every race and ethnicity when we can express our views and contribute to the discussion.

See this speech in context