Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise today to speak about the inquiry into the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. May I say that this debate has been at a standstill since 2011, and it is the Turnbull government who initiated this inquiry through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I applaud this bipartisan committee, who prepared a report which is balanced and solution focused in relation to section 18C and associated debate.

May I first address the comments of the member for Cowan, who makes the incredible assumption that no-one on the other side of the House has experienced racism or discrimination. As the member for Chisholm and of immigrant heritage myself, I have paid close and specific attention to this debate. I am so incredibly proud of the people of Chisholm, who I represent in this House. Chisholm is the third most culturally diverse electorate in Australia. It covers 65 square kilometres in Melbourne's urban east and represents a kind of microcosm of this great country. Indeed, we are the most successful multicultural nation on this earth, enjoying a non-discriminatory migration policy which is underpinned by the value of respect embraced by the Turnbull government.

In November 2016, leaders of 10 multicultural community groups made an important statement on the Racial Discrimination Act. The statement was made by peak bodies, including leaders from the Chinese, Jewish, Vietnamese, Greek and Arabic communities. The groups said:

We do not believe that any case has been made to alter sections 18C and 18D of the RDA …

Sections 18C and 18D of the RDA have been key components in the array of legislative and educative tools used by each of our communities in our efforts to counter-act racism. We are deeply concerned that a change to the substantive terms of sections 18C or 18D … would weaken those efforts …

Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, in my view, should not be changed. The case has not been made to do so. The case, however, has been made to make process changes to ensure that respondents are more fairly treated, and I support the recommendations of the committee.

I have over 20 years experience as a legal practitioner and have always regarded the principle of 'the spirit and intention of the law' to be paramount. I also know full well the inherent risk and burden of litigation. I have observed my fair share of vexatious or unmeritorious litigants in my time. Albeit that section 18C plays an important role in our multicultural society, it was always intended as a limited protection to be used only in the most serious cases. The way the law is currently being administered allows too many nuisance complaints or vexatious cases.

My view is that the pain is in the process. The pain of having to endure the burden of the prospect of lengthy and/or expensive litigation and dealing with the legal process should never have had to be endured by, for example, the Queensland university students or Bill Leak, the cartoonist. Most of the issues related to section 18C concern process matters rather than substantive outcomes under the law. They have caused distress and anxiety and gone too far. They have created, as I said, pain in the process.

The report highlights the clear process issues with administration of the act and makes a number of pragmatic and sensible recommendations in this area, with the unanimous support of the bipartisan committee—something which the member for Cowan could take note of. The report makes several recommendations to fix the complaints-handling process relating to the handling of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. These include providing greater assistance to respondents to match what is currently afforded to complainants; imposing time limits on notifying respondents and on the complaints-handling process more generally; ensuring section 18D defences are considered by the commission in assessing complaints; giving the commission greater powers to terminate complaints earlier in the process; restricting access to the courts following the commission's termination of a complaint; providing penalties for legal practitioners instituting complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success; and providing more parliamentary oversight to the commission.

I note the comments in The Australian today by Mr Tony Morris QC, who defended the Queensland university students in the case that was brought against them under section 18C. To paraphrase Mr Morris, he said that the recommendations are not what some of those who oppose 18C wanted but that they would do the job. He said:

The best part is the combined effect of all the protections they are proposing to put in for respondents to complaints … If the report's recommendations are adopted, it will lead to a level playing field so that respondents enjoy rights similar to complainants.

Addressing these process issues is unanimously accepted by multicultural communities around Australia.

The committee has unanimously recommended a range of changes which will support the spirit and intention of the law—that is, that only the most serious of cases should come under section 18C. If implemented, these changes will avoid unnecessary, unmeritorious or vexatious litigation claims proceeding. The committee has recommended these changes to improve the operation of the existing law. In my view, if implemented, they will make it very difficult for these unmeritorious or vexatious litigation matters to proceed, will put respondents on a much more equal footing, will give respondents the ease and comfort of knowing that they will not be caught up in a vexatious litigation process, and will ensure that the spirit and intention of the law in section 18C and 18D are properly implemented.

See this speech in context