Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

Today the government has announced, on Harmony Day of all days, when the rest of the world is celebrating the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, that it wants to give licence to more racial hate speech. Of all the extraordinary days to make an extraordinary decision, the government has chosen this one. They decided for the backbenchers who they rolled in making this decision, the number of people on that side who have taken a principled stand, that they would smuggle away and bring the bill into the Senate first, not introduce it here. That is not because it is the Attorney-General's bill, because last year we had amendments to the Native Title Act—that was a bill belonging to the Attorney-General, and there was no appropriation attached to it. It could easily have been started in the Senate. The reason they started this bill in the Senate is simple—they think their own members of parliament are going to be able to hide. Well they cannot. No member on that side of the chamber can hide from answering the simple question: do they want to lower the bar on racial hate speech in Australia?

It takes a pretty extraordinary human being to be elected to this place, where you get to be a voice for people who need your help, and decide the people you need to speak on behalf of are the racial bigots. It is a pretty extraordinary choice that people make when they come into this place and decide that when they see an example of racial hate speech the person whose voice is not loud enough, that the person they need to stand up for, is not the person on the receiving end of the racial hate speech—it is the abuser who they think is just is not allowed to say enough. Be in no doubt, members on this side will oppose anything that involves lowering the bar on what is deemed acceptable hate speech in this country. No-one is fooled by the Prime Minister's line 'we're strengthening the act'. Strengthening the act!

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

If their argument, as the argument of the poor interjector who just cannot wait for his turn and who, when he got the chance to ask a question today, decided to ask it on a completely different issue because of the humiliation of the answer that would follow—those opposite are in the situation now where they have to answer a basic question. When the bar is lowered—and it has to be being lowered; it cannot be being strengthened if the argument is freedom of speech; if the argument is freedom of speech then it must be by this change you are allowed to say more—what more will people be allowed to say? The answer will be a form of racial hatred. How on earth is this country ever going to be improved by more racial hatred? This might be a dinner party conversation over cocktails and champagne for those opposite, with that brand of champagne that the Prime Minister keeps mentioning that we look bewildered about. But it is real for the person who this afternoon, on the train line that I live on, will find herself being racially abused on the way home. It is real for the kids in the local shopping centre in my part of Sydney who will come home trembling after their parents have been abused.

Government members interjecting —

I hear the interjection from those opposite. They really do not know.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

See this speech in context