Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Those opposite can sit there and mock and laugh, but that is exactly their modus operandi: whenever anybody has a different view, they mock; they try to put those people down in an effort to silence them. Several weeks ago when I stood in the Federation Chamber I argued for the repeal of section 18C. Does that make me a racist? Those opposite might say yes. I am not a racist, and neither are any of the people in my electorate who have come to me or written to me and argued for something similar. But I acknowledge that a pragmatic approach is needed in order to amend the legislation to remove the subjective language in the provision—namely, 'offend, insult, humiliate' and to address the many shortcomings in the administration of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

If those opposite seriously think section 18C requires no amendment then they are clearly living with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Tell that to the QUT students who were dragged through the commission. Tell that to the now deceased Bill Leak. The Bill Leak case is another classic example that has compelled this government to act in the interests of all Australians. It is one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system that people can understand the laws that govern them. It is indisputable that the words 'offend, insult, humiliate' are open to very different interpretations. They are subject to the vagaries of the sensibilities of those within earshot. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. What is insulting to one person may not be insulting to another. What is humiliating to one may not be humiliating to another. Add to this the problem that the current test is one whereby the offensive, insulting or humiliating words are judged against the views of the racial group of the complainant. This subjective test pits one group of Australians against another, because what is offensive, insulting or humiliating to one group of Australians may be entirely at odds with the experience of other Australians.

The legal test that is currently enshrined in the legislation as it is sets Australians against their fellow Australians. The sensible amendments proposed by the government provide an objective test whereby the harassment or the intimidating behaviour is judged in the eyes of the ordinary Australian. The amendments create a truly objective test. No reasonable Australian would support the intimidation of another person. No reasonable Australian would support the harassment of another person. The government wants to strengthen section 18C by inserting protections in the form of the word 'harass'. It will be unlawful to harass a person or intimidate another because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

These sensible amendments provide much-needed certainty to a very uncertain provision. They provide the requisite degree of objectivity that many Australians are crying out for. Those opposite want to perpetuate the madness of political correctness. We are here to stop it.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context