Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to appear in front of you in this capacity for the first time: congratulations on your appointment.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was elected for the third time by the people of Moreton because of the many things that I have championed over the years. On 24 November 2007, I won against the sitting member who had represented Moreton for 12 years and who, just before the election, had said in a radio interview which became quite famous in my community: 'My community is being exhausted by African refugees.' I came out loudly against that statement back in 2007 and, ever since, I have called out racism when I hear it and when I see it, whenever I can—even though things have changed significantly; racism is not a big part of the Australian community the way it was back in 1901 when Australia was formed—I think the White Australia Policy was the very first piece of legislation to come through this parliament. Now, we do not condone such behaviour.

A member's first speech sets the key performance indicators for their beliefs. In my first speech I made very clear my position on racism and hate speech. I promised I would work hard to make sure that unfair, racist accusations were never, ever given oxygen in my neighbourhood, the part of Australia that I represent. I stand here representing an electorate where one in three voters was born overseas. They are from all parts of the world, particularly from Taiwan and China, but also from India, Britain, Africa and Vietnam. I said in my first speech that the price of harmony is hard work. Fear will always come out, especially when times are tough. Intolerance will always come to the fore if people see an opportunity to exploit it. We must build understanding, trust and friendship, irrespective of the race, religion, age or political beliefs of the people of our communities.

Today I rise to fulfil that promise, because I heard about the Attorney General's flagged intention to repeal section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. I am more familiar with the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act, which is an area of law I worked in as a solicitor, but I am quite familiar with this flagged proposal.

I want to flag a few things about this, because there was a bit of misinformation flying around before the election. I clarify and state unequivocally that the changes that the Labor Party brought in did not stop individuals making racist jokes or religious jokes. If you want to sit in the pub and do so, that is your right. If you want to sit in your home and do so, that is your right. Two people can make Irish or whatever jokes that people want to make, but it is a different kettle of fish when it comes to public comments.

The act provides protection from the sort of bigoted and vitriolic abuse that can be quite damaging for people. It can actually be damaging for individuals. I say this having been a teacher for 11 years: the damage can flow down into the schoolyard very quickly. It can lead to a breakdown in community cohesion and even, sadly, to physical violence or such harm to communities.

In Queensland we have largely been blessed. We have not seen things like the Cronulla riots, although the Kuraby mosque in my electorate was one of the first religious institutions to suffer after 9-11, when it was firebombed. Since then the community has come back stronger and more cohesive and with more understanding of our faiths and graces.

We saw with the Cronulla riots how comments by an individual, I think it was Alan Jones—I am speaking as a Queenslander, so I do not know the process; thankfully, we do not get him in Queensland—who made some inflammatory comments, and from there people took up the cudgels and ignorance flourished. Admittedly, he was then found to have breached the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act.

I know we are talking not about New South Wales but about Commonwealth law. However, the Attorney-General's coming out and flagging this change as though it were the No. 1 agenda item, outside of getting rid of the licence to pollute that Labor had brought in, seemed to be something that had been touched on but not highlighted before the election. I certainly got no literature about it during the election campaign. I do worry. I do not want to sound like some sort of manic street preacher, or anything, but I do believe that if we tolerate this then our children will be next. Once you say to people that you can start targeting others because of their race it leads to all sorts of complications. I think there are people in the chamber who would remember the divisive comments of the former member for Oxley, who was only a one-term member—it was not that long ago. She drew out the ignorant, misinformed and xenophobic parts of our community to the extent that she got 11 seats out of 89 in the Queensland parliament a few years after she was elected. She attacked Asian immigration, which caused harm to the Taiwanese community that I now represent. It caused harm in the schoolyard, because people thought it was okay to attack someone because of where they came from.

People were even attacked because of their faith. It is something that I would flag as a topic for another day. In Queensland, if someone attacks you because of your faith, under Queensland anti-discrimination laws you actually have grounds to make a complaint, but not under Commonwealth law. That is something I think we should look at down the track.

I am a proud representative of Australia's largest Taiwanese community. The member for Fowler, next to me, also has a significant Taiwanese community and has close connections to the Taiwanese community. He knows that if you let this sort of ignorance flourish then you get those sort of misguided comments that Andrew Bolt was found guilty of not having a defence for. He said, 'I am able to make a comment because I am a public broadcaster.' That was not the case. There was a time when we did not have an Age Discrimination Act, a Disability Discrimination Act or a Racial Discrimination Act, which is something I will actually commend Malcolm Fraser on. I think he was the minister who brought in the Racial Discrimination Act. I could be wrong on that, but I think it was something that he was particularly proud of having brought in because of his connections with the Indigenous community. We also have the Sex Discrimination Act and the human rights commission act where we have a commissioner who will go out there and make sure that people are doing the right thing.

But for an Attorney-General to turn around and say that it is important that someone is able to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate someone on racial grounds I find quite surprising. I would wonder why that would be an agenda item for this government. I would ask the true liberals with the small 'l'—I am looking at members opposite, and I am sorry to out them—to say, as they have said so often, that we need to be careful about this .

As I said, we are not trying to impose. We are not trying to have this government create a nanny state, which seems to be shorthand for anything that interferes with someone's life. The reality is that we are not interfering with someone's set of domestic circumstances. We are not even interfering with a comedian's right to tell jokes that people might say are offensive . That is not what we are trying to do. It would have to be racial vilification that people would find in all reasonable circumstances offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates another person or group. That is not a nanny state. For a start, I have never had a problem with nannies; I think they do a great job.

Why would the Attorney-General, with all the time that he is had to contemplate what vision he would bring to his legislative agenda, say that we need to revisit this? It is because of one judicial decision handed down against Andrew Bolt. I respect his right to speak freely. Australian democracy is probably all the better for him being able to make comment. But racial vilification is something I am passionately opposed to, and I urge those opposite when they come to considering this in the proposal stages to consider these words. (Time expired)