Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

No, no, hear me out. On those rare occasions, as the former speaker has just interjected, where something is more urgent—and we had some of that, for example, that happened at the start of this year, with respect to some regulations as well—we have always made sure that there are briefings that happen beforehand, and we do everything we can—because occasionally something is genuinely that urgent—to make sure party procedures are able to be followed.

Any legislation that we deal with on this issue would be government legislation. For example, questions as to whether the number of penalty units that is proposed here is the right number of penalty units in the context of the rest of the act—should it be higher or lower?—is something that you'd get formal departmental advice on. Whether the exemptions here are right, whether there is anything that has been missed, whether it should be tighter or narrower, is something that you would formally work through. But, as I say, I've been advised that work on this exact area is being done and has been underway for some time in the office of the Attorney-General.

Because of the tone of the debate, I am not criticising the opposition in any way, shape or form for raising it in this way. Nobody should take the government's decision to not immediately, without any process, go ahead with the private member's bill as being some sort of lack of commitment to this cause. On issues relating to this, we have had previous debates, over about a decade, with respect to 18C and other areas where people have toyed with various pathways. But ultimately the previous government never went ahead with those changes, and I respect that they ended up not going ahead with them.

An honourable member interjecting—

I hear you. They didn't go ahead with them. We've had previous debates. We are in a situation where there are objections to Nazi symbols being used. They are symbols that are horrific. People go to a freedom-of-speech argument, but, when it comes to just straight hatred, symbols can be bullets, words can be bullets, and the horror of that salute is, in real terms, an act of violence in itself. Those are views that are shared around this room.

There are particular reasons why no government has ever agreed to a private member's bill in the form that is put here, but, as I said, every state parliament now, pretty much, has been working through these issues. There has often been a debate before they've got there, and often some people have tested the water with freedom-of-speech arguments before things have landed. I say this as someone who will go through their entire life without being a victim of racial bigotry, but I am surrounded by neighbours whose experience can be utterly different. Of all the symbols of bigotry, this is one we have a particular need to unanimously oppose. The fact that we will end up dividing on a procedural motion, as we're about to, should not be seen to change the unanimity on the need to oppose those symbols.

The shadow minister quite rightly—the Leader of the Opposition may have as well, but for part of his speech I was walking to the chamber, so I can't pretend to have heard the whole of the speech—referred very specifically to the horror of the Holocaust. We have members within this chamber for whom the Holocaust is not simply something they learnt about; it's something that has touched their families very personally. It was a level of hatred that has been crystallised in particular symbols. Some Australians—for reasons that I will never be able to fathom, and I suspect no-one in this room will be able to fathom—somehow see a level of security or something in reverting back to those symbols. Well, the parliament won't have it. This private member's bill potentially goes some way to being able to deal with it, but, as I say, there are processes that are already underway in the Attorney-General's Department, and there are further processes that we have to go to. But I would not want anyone—anyone at all—to see the parliament dividing on a vote in a few moments time and see that as evidence of division on the need to oppose the use of these symbols. These symbols have become the symbols of the worst of humanity, and I was stunned and horrified to see them appearing in Melbourne.

See this speech in context