Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report presented yesterday makes zero recommendations to change section 18C. It throws the ball back into the Prime Minister's court, probably because the ultraconservatives opposite want to make his life as difficult as possible. There is a very strong political element to this.

I was born at a time in the shadows of the Menzies government—I know that sounds like a long time ago—and I remember very much the sayings around at that time, which were presented as very okay: 'reds under the beds' and 'the yellow peril coming down from the north'. That was the sort of language that was used back then. Malcolm Turnbull said changes to section 18C were not on the agenda. I guess this means that he does not have any control of that anymore. The collective determination and the will of those opposite were hell bent on watering down the Racial Discrimination Act, but they could not even create a report that made a recommendation about it—that is how baseless their argument is.

In Barton, nearly 50 per cent of the community were born overseas or have a parent who was. The view in Barton is clear: hate speech should not be tolerated. In Hurstville, the Chinese community just want to live free of harassment, as do the Arab community in Bexley, the Macedonian community and the Greek community—and the list goes on. They all just want to get on with their lives. But they do want to know one thing: what exactly is it that those opposite think they cannot say now that they would want to say if 18C and 18D were removed? What is it that you think you will need to say then that you cannot say now? I think that is absolutely the question. We all have parliamentary privilege in this place, and I am urging you to say exactly what it is that offends, intimidates or insults on the basis of race. Say it in this place, and let the community decide for itself whether your concerns are valid.

Section 18C does not need to be changed. Those opposite are happy to completely ignore section 18D of the act, which is incredibly convenient, but previous speakers have made it very clear that that is the fail-safe in the act. Section 18D provides protections for cartoonists and for speech which is made in good faith. It protects free speech, which makes even more ludicrous the argument about 18C.

I want to ask all of the supposed free speech advocates on the other side: where are their voices on moves by their government to silence the free speech of critics of their own government on Centrelink robo-debt? And what about the surveillance of journalists and their sources? What about the refusal to comment on on-water matters? The fact is this is hypocrisy of the worst sort. They believe in the right to free speech when it suits them and on their terms. I have been the subject of racial abuse before; it was not pleasant. I see no reason to open the floodgates to that kind of talk. There simply is not any justification for it.

The whole debate is a distraction created by the incredibly out-of-touch ultraconservatives opposite. Let me come to those ultraconservatives: the ideologues, the malcontents. The same group arguing about 18C are the same group who do not want equality in marriage and the same group who will run—and they have told me this already—a no case for constitutional recognition of First Peoples. Why is it that same group of people seem to coalesce around these issues? This is why I am saying it is political. It is about destabilising the present Prime Minister and it is about running a right-wing agenda that is a complete distraction to the real issues and the real matters that affect the daily lives of people. What is it—as I said—that people cannot say now that they think they will be able to say if those protections are removed? It is division and it is politically motivated.

A complaint has been made about me to the commission under section 18C by several people. The complaint was made by several men. They took offence and said that I was racially motivated in saying that it seemed to me that most of the people—I think I was quite accurate, actually—who seemed to be running the case for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are white males of a certain age. That, apparently, was enough for a number of those offended to take that complaint to the commission. Of course, it was vexatious and it was thrown out very quickly.

No-one should think that racism is not a real issue in this country. I will go to two issues to say that the spectre of racism rises up in a spectacular way. And as previous speakers have said, quite often I think people probably wonder what it was all about when the furore settles.

I will take people back to 2005 in Cronulla. That was an issue that got international attention . Essentially, it was an issue about people of the Muslim faith and people from the area that I represented at the time, Canterbury, wanting to swim at Cronulla Beach. The three days of ugliness that we saw in Sydney was something that I hope we never see again in this country. There was the usurping of the Australian flag and, in particular, of the Southern Cross symbol, which I think is a very important symbol for all of us in Australia. It has somehow been taken by those who committed those terrible acts in those days of the Cronulla riots.

Then we can think about the Australian Football League and the racism that Adam Goodes was subjected to in 2015. I know Adam personally; I am involved in his foundation as a supporter. Adam is a good man. It was not only what we saw and the reaction that we saw—and not only by the media—but also the lack of response by certain institutions that was just a reflection of just how deeply ingrained racism is in some parts of this country.

But the Racial Discrimination Act has served us well over a very long period of time. As the member for Parramatta said, 18C, and I think 18D—but certainly 18C—has been there for 20 years. I must point out to those on the other side—the malcontents—that it came in when John Howard was the Prime Minister.

We are an amazing country, and this debate belittles us all as Australians. It belittles us and it is an embarrassing discussion. I know very well, as do other people—particularly the member for Lingiari, who is sitting here beside me, and also the members for Hunter and for Longman—that the ebb of politics is very much that: it goes in and it comes out. It moves to the right, it moves to the left and it sits in the centre. This race to the right is ugly, it is demeaning and it is also lacking in any transparency. It lacks any transparency at all. What decency does is trumps all of those values. I suppose that 'values' is the word!

See this speech in context