Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the beginning of my remarks, I send a big shout out to the people in my electorate who I know will be listening to this speech and will be commenting on my speech on social media. We do have a small element in Bendigo who say they believe in free speech but are caught up in a movement that tries to deny free speech and freedom of religion to a group of people in our community. Unfortunately, my town became well known throughout the world for some very ugly protests about the building of our first mosque. It is both a sad story and at the same time a happy story for our community. I say it was happy because the City of Greater Bendigo council made a planning decision and approved the development, the planning application, of the city's first mosque.

We at the time had a relatively small Bendigo Muslim community of about 200 people. They are our doctors. They are our engineers and academics. They are people who are well regarded and respected in our community. They are also some refugees from Afghanistan working at Hazeldene's in the chicken-processing facility. They are people who volunteer a lot of their time. Many of them love their soccer. Women enjoy swimming, swimming with their children and teaching their children to swim. They are a big part of our community. So it was quite a shock to many in Bendigo that a small group, predominantly people from outside, opposed the development of the mosque.

Most of you know what happened next. There were some ugly protests in Bendigo. A lot of people from outside our town came in, whipped up a lot of fear and whipped up a lot of anger, opposing the building and the development of the mosque. They said that they had the freedom to do that under freedom of speech, but what they were doing in its defence was denying other values. Those other values are so strongly held in belief in this country: freedom of religion, freedom of culture—the ability in this country to share our values and to share our beliefs as long as we do not hurt or hinder others.

There was an incident in particular—and this matter is still before the courts—on 4 October that just demonstrates the difference between this group saying that they should be able to do this because it is free speech and how outraged the community were, saying: 'No, that's not free speech. You've overstepped the mark.' This particular group, members of an anti-Islamic group, the United Patriots Front, gathered out the front of the Bendigo council building. They cut off the head off a small dummy with a black mask, spilling fake blood on the ground, just metres away from the council entrance. The United Patriots Front describe themselves as a national movement opposing the spread of 'left-wing treason' and the spread of Islam. The group said that this was an act of free speech. It is not.

The group has since been charged. A 34-year-old man from Frankston, a 45-year-old man from Wallan and a 31-year-old man from South Morang—noting that none of them are actually from Bendigo; all are from outside—have been charged with making a video with the intent of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion of, a person or a class of people, a charge brought under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 of Victoria. They have also been charged with defacing the footpath in front of the council building as well as wilful damage to the footpath, wall and garden.

This is not free speech, and I support the actions of the police and the Victorian government in bringing charges against these three men. This was, in my opinion, an act of violence. This was an act that was about inciting fear, about provoking fear, about dividing our community, by outsiders who came in to hold the most disgraceful of protests, a mock beheading. Yet they try to hide behind the term 'free speech'.

We all get the opportunity to participate in citizenship and Australia Day activities. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility. I, like lots of people, have received emails that say, 'The simple truth is that my mind and my mouth are my own,' but, the moment you speak in a public forum like this and people hear you, it is what you say, so that you are not then impinging on somebody else's democratic rights and values. We have to take responsibility for our actions. We have to take responsibility for what we say. That is because it is about the community that we live in. The email goes on to say, 'What you do with them does not amount to violence. Only physical actions do.' That is such an outdated view. Say that to the victims of family violence. Before there is physical violence, there is verbal abuse. Say that to people in the workplace who are harassed, who face discrimination. In Australian society, we now pull people up when they harass, when they intimidate, when they use words in a violent way. The idea that you can verbally abuse somebody but, because it is not physical, it is still freedom of speech is wrong.

Labor has been and will always be a staunch supporter of free speech. However, free speech does come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech is a value and, like many values, must always be counterbalanced with competing values. In Australia, as in all Western democracies, there are a number of ways in which freedom of speech has always been constrained to benefit our community. I have mentioned a few. Others which are quite common are our defamation laws—allowing an individual to pursue protection of their reputation—and our consumer protection laws. Even here in our own parliament there are restrictions on what MPs can say, even when we have parliamentary privilege. We always pull people up if we believe they are impinging on somebody else's other rights. That is the responsibility that we take on board.

For over 20 years, since the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted by the Keating government, section 18C has embodied our nation's commitment to stopping racial vilification—a protection for our citizens and our society from the poisonous effects of hate speech. Over that the time, its sister provision, section 18D, has operated to protect freedom of speech. I live in a part of the world that, when you look at the ABS statistics, may not reflect multicultural Australia. That is because a lot of the people who live in greater Bendigo have lived there for many generations. Our Bendigo Chinese community has lived in Bendigo for five or six generations. When these debates come up, they are always the first to speak up about their experiences in Australia. Whilst they embrace and celebrate multicultural Australia, they know that, without the protection of freedom of religion, without the protection of laws like 18C, they would continue to face ongoing racism. When the movie Romper Stomper came out, the Chinese museum, the Golden Dragon Museum, was defaced with a swastika and 'White Power' was sprayed across the fences. This is unacceptable, and the community rallied behind the Chinese community and the Golden Dragon Museum.

You can imagine, with all of this in the mix, how our community gets frustrated by these debates. These debates, which the Liberals continue to bring on, are purely about an ideological agenda. Weakening safeguards against hate speech will not create a single job. It will not help pensioners pay their bills or put money into the pockets of workers desperate for extra hours or to see a lift in their wages. All this government is doing is continuing to drive a wedge into our community, continuing to say to people like the United Patriots Front that what they are doing is okay, when it is not.

See this speech in context