Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

I have never stood in this place and heard a member spew so much hatred towards his fellow Australians, as we have just heard from the member for Watson. Why would he have such a low view of his fellow Australians and such a lack of faith in the people he is sent here to represent as to think that, if we are not here watching their every word and making sure that we have outlawed thought and speech, that will unleash some tsunami of racism, homophobia or whatever ism he cares to name.

This is actually a debate about the fundamental way that we view Australian society. I have an optimistic view about my fellow Australians—a very optimistic view. I believe in their common sense; I believe that when given a chance they give their fellow Australians a fair go. That is why we have the most successful, diverse, multicultural society in the world. Apparently that is not a view shared by those opposite. They take a very pessimistic and dark view of their fellow Australians. They think that we need to legislate out impure thoughts; they think that we need to outlaw speech because, if we do not do that, we will see the dark side of human nature—the dark side of what they believe is Australian nature.

We heard an enormous amount of overreach from the member for Watson—it really was quite an extraordinary amount of overreach for what are relatively minor changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. I want to go through those changes because most sensible Australians—and I believe in the common sense of Australians—would agree with what the government is trying to achieve here. They would agree with the balance that has been struck with these very sensible reforms. This bill does three things, and the third thing concerns some very trivial and technical changes to the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission that have been recommended by the commission itself.

The first two things are what this reform is all about. We are reforming the Racial Discrimination Act to remove the words 'offend, insult and humiliate' from paragraph 18C and insert instead the word 'harass'. I think most sensible Australians would agree that 'offend, insult and humiliate' are essentially the same word and taking away those three words and replacing them with 'harass' replaces a subjective test with a more objective test. We are also inserting a requirement that the test applied in determining whether 18C has been breached is an objective standard, which is considered to be the standard of a reasonable member of the Australian community. Most members of the Australian community are reasonable members of the Australian community. That is a view that we share but apparently it is not shared by members of the opposition.

The second important thing this bill does is reform the way the Australian Human Rights Commission deals with complaints. I do not think anyone who has perused Australian newspapers over the last 18 months could disagree that this is an important goal. When cartoonists are prosecuted or when students are alleged to have said something on Facebook are treated in the way that the students at QUT were, I think most sensible Australians would know that the government needs to act to ensure that we do not see a repeat of this sort of unjust treatment of people. We are reforming the complaints-handling process of the Australian Human Rights Commission to provide that the commission is required to observe the rules of natural justice, including the appropriate notification of the existence of a complaint, timely resolution of the complaint and specific provision for consideration of relevant exemptions. We are also saying that the threshold required for the commission to accept a complaint should be raised.

There are a number of other things that we are doing but in particular we are giving the commission the power to terminate at an early stage complaints if they are unmeritorious. This reform of the complaints-handling process, along with the law reform, will ensure that we do not see a repeat of the sorts of prosecutions we have seen in the past, which have effectively called into question the whole basis of this law. When people see the persecution of the students at QUT or when they see a cartoonist being hauled before the commission for a cartoon, they know something is wrong with that. That is why the government needed to act.

These reforms still retain the balance to make sure that people are protected from the harassment of racial vilification. These reforms actually strengthen our anti-vilification laws and enhance freedom of speech while improving complaint handling process of the Australian Human Rights Commission. This is all about striking a balance, and this government has got the balance right. It is not just this government—or apparently if you listen to the opposition, it is all about sections of the Liberal Party who want this change—but there is a very broad consensus within the Australian community for changing the way that racial vilification legislation has operated. It includes people like Sev Ozdowski, a former Human Rights Commissioner. He has been quoted in the newspapers as saying that there should be no right to be offended, but he has also said in his evidence to the very successful joint standing committee hearing that we had on this issue that:

There is no doubt in my mind that racism needs to be curtailed but I am yet to see solid empirical evidence that the insertion of section 18C into the act in 1995 diminished racism.

This is a former Human Rights Commissioner who is saying this. He went on to say:

…I have seen the chilling effects of that legislation on the discussion of any cultural characteristics. Questions about cultural practices are risky to ask. It also builds resentment and distrust. It creates a 'them and us' attitude. In my view it may put multiculturalism at risk. It also creates enormous repercussions that damage the respondent to a complaint, regardless of whether the allegation is proved or not.

He went on to say that:

Being accused of racism is a similar thing to being accused of sexual violence. It is having a very negative impact on people who are accused of racism.

That is from a former human rights commissioner who is pointing out that the status quo—the existing way the Racial Discrimination Act operates—is having this chilling effect on debate within our society but is not actually achieving what it is supposed to achieve.

His comments have been supported by other submissions to that joint parliamentary inquiry. George Williams, who is actually a former Labor candidate and current dean of the University of New South Wales law school, said:

I would prefer to move to an objective test in this area again—

which is what the government has done—

because I would like to see stronger protection for free speech in this context while still preserving this for serious cases that are serious as they relate to general community standards.

Again, this is the reform that the government is choosing to enact with these changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.

He has been supported by other distinguished Australians. Justice Ronald Sackville said that section 18C is:

… "too wide in its reach and places too much emphasis on the subjective responses of the targeted individual group, as distinct from objective community standards".

Professor Sarah Joseph from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law said:

… I do believe that section 18C, as drafted, is drafted too broadly and I have said that for some time. There is an international human right to free speech, and I do not believe it is displaced by any comparable right to be free from offence and insult, whereas I do think that it can be displaced by rights regarding freedom from humiliation and intimidation.

That was an overview of some of the submissions that were made to the joint standing committee inquiry into this, and they were quotes from people who would not be automatically considered supporters of the government by any means. It shows that there is widespread concern within the community about how the current Racial Discrimination Act acts. That widespread concern has been ventilated by the treatment of the late Bill Leak in terms of what happened to him in relation to him exercising his free speech with a cartoon in the The Australian and in relation to what was, quite frankly, an appalling treatment of students at the QUT over the course of about two years.

The problem with the Labor Party is that they do not believe in the common sense and the goodwill of the Australian people. They think that they are standing here outlawing free speech and outlying free thought. They think that that is the way that we are going to enforce this Stalinist view on Australian society—that people cannot utter what they think. That is the way that they believe they are going to control free speech and free thought within Australian society.

The government, in response to widespread community concerns about the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act, has charted a sensible middle course here to make sure that people will not be subject to racial harassment. We will not be prosecuting people for expressing their view or seeing a repeat of the horrors that have resulted from the way that the Racial Discrimination Act is acting at the moment. If the Labor Party believed in the Australian people—if they believed in their common sense—they would easily support the government in this sensible measure.

See this speech in context