Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

I spent many years thinking that I was not racist. I live in the most extraordinary community. I quite often do not notice anymore if a person is wearing a hijab or not. For many years, I really thought that I was not racist. Then about five years ago I was driving along, really tired, and a woman crossed the road in front of me and caused me to slow down. My visceral response was based on some appalling stereotypes that I did not think I held and I thought, 'Where did that come from? I don't even believe that. I don't even believe the response I just had to that person. Where did that come from?' Then I realised that this stuff gets in. It gets in when you walk past and you hear it, when it is on television or when you are raised in a country town where people talk about the 'yellow hordes', as they did where I was raised. It gets in. The great challenge and the great joy of living in a community like mine is that you actually get to unpack it. You get to see these strange assumptions that you have made and you begin to enjoy the great complexity of diversity in front of you. It is hard, but it is a real challenge and it actually brings me joy.

But I only have to do that when I look at someone else; I do not have to do that when I look in the mirror. I know that there are kids in my area who are told every day that they are less valuable. I have had fathers in my office, worried. After 10 minutes of demonstrating their Australianness—I have never had to demonstrate mine, but they felt this need to demonstrate their Australianness in spite of my claims that they did not need to—they would then get to the point. They were worried about their five- and six-year-old sons and what poison was getting in because of this debate, and about how they would manage to raise those sons without that poison affecting their capacity to live the lives they should live. We in this place have an obligation to set laws that protect people from the poison that pours on them through racism and bigotry and that affects their capacity to live the life that they should live. That is our job in this place. It is quite clear that I do not believe that we have rights to be bigots. I clearly do not believe the attacks on the Racial Discrimination Act from the other side—in fact, quite the opposite. I think we have an obligation to make the laws that protect people from that poison as strong as we possibly can.

I want to explain this to people. There are very few people in my electorate who are concerned about the Racial Discrimination Act. I have had three people write to me, asking for us to support radical change to the Racial Discrimination Act, and many, many others who want it to stay as it is have written to me. But I am going to address the concerns of those who are worried about freedom of speech and how 18C might impact on that. I am going to start by explaining where it actually came from. The Racial Discrimination Act is actually about 40 years old, but 18C, and 18D, was introduced 20 years ago in response to a number of reports on racial violence—that was what was going on, racial violence—including the National Inquiry into Racial Violence, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Law Reform Commission's report called Multiculturalism and the law and international treaty obligations, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Those of us who were younger in those days, who were in schools and universities, will remember some of the racial language that was used to describe people who looked different or came from a different part of the world. We remember that. So that is when it was introduced.

Since it was introduced, there have been 2,000 complaints—that is about 100 each year. Over that 20 years, 100 of those have ended up in court—that is about five a year. This is not something that has caused a massive attack on people's ability to speak freely; these are actually really small numbers. I would like to find another law where the number of cases that actually ended up in court was that small—100, that is five per year over 20 years. In 2013-14 there was a bit of a spike, with 116 cases. There were still only five that went to court, but there were 116 cases, and it dropped last year down to 77 cases, with three of those ending up in court. So this is not a massive landslide. For the people who think this is new, that it is growing and that it is escalating and becoming a massive problem, the numbers are actually very small and they are fairly consistent. There is actually good reason for that. The people who want us to be able to say whatever we like, whenever we like, when it comes to race—but not when it comes to business, older people or gender; just when it comes to race—only ever talk about 18C. And 18C says what you cannot say. But 18D is the one that protects freedom of speech.

18D is quite cleverly drafted. It says section 18C 'does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith' in the course of what might be summarised as public debate or fair comment, including artistic expressions. This means that one is free to give expression to racist ideas, including those that offend, if it falls within 18D's fairly broad definitions of reasonable speech. So in a public debate, if you make a point about policy or if you are just ignorant but say it in good faith, you are off the hook. This is why the vast majority of cases that are brought to the Human Rights Commission are resolved without going to court.

I want to read to you one that was resolved. It did not go to court. I want people to think about whether or not this is okay. This is a complaint under 18C. It says:

The complainant who is Hindu, of Indian ethnic origin and over 50 years of age was employed by the respondent mining company as an engineer. He claimed managers and supervisors:

- referred to him as an 'Indian bastard' and told him ‘Indians are fools and useless’, ‘you’re the next curry muncher on the list’ and ‘Indian c**ts can’t work for sh*t’;

- called him a ‘bloody Hindu’, asked him why Hindus 'pray to cows instead of eating them', said Hindus are ‘idiots’ and ‘rogues’ and told him to ‘go and eat beef’;

- told him ‘culturally we are a young organisation of an average age of 28 years old, except you old man’, called him a ‘bloody old fellow’;

- did not issue him with required work-related equipment such as a computer, a mobile phone and a licence to drive

And it goes on.

That was one case. Is that what we are saying is okay? Do the people who think we should wipe out 18C and 18D think that is okay? This man was in a workplace. There are probably other forms—bullying. Somehow bullying is not okay, but it is if it is about race. Bullying is not okay but if it is racial then go for it. This man was in a workplace. If this man is your neighbour and when you walk out in your backyard with your six-year-old child this is what you get, is that okay? If you walk down to the shops and this is what you get, is that okay? Is this what they mean by, 'You have a right to be a bigot'?

See this speech in context