Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the 40th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which was passed in implementation of our international obligations under the International Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination; and

(2) recognises the:

(a) important role the Act plays in Australia’s Human Rights Framework;

(b) importance of Section 18C of the Act in protecting Australians from racist hate speech; and

(c) important role the Human Rights Commission plays in administering the Act.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The year 2015 marks the 40th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act and, in the midst of a national debate about the rights and responsibilities of Australian citizenship, it is a timely anniversary to reflect upon. Australian citizenship is the core of one of Australia's greatest policy success stories: the Australian model of multiculturalism, a model that, in general, respects and protects the rights of Australians to celebrate their ethnic heritage while at the same time emphasising that this liberty is coupled with the unifying and overarching obligations that we all have as citizens of a liberal democracy. As a result, we are a stronger and more prosperous nation because of our social diversity and we are a safer and more secure society because of our national unity.

We have come a long way on the issue of race in this country. As I speak in this chamber, a boy from Beaudesert in Queensland and the son of a Filipino migrant to this country, Jason Day, is battling against the best golf players of the world in the final round of the US Open. When my ancestor was a member of the Queensland parliament in the 1860s, that chamber passed a series of racist laws designed to discriminate against Asian residents of that state. One of the first orders of business of this parliament after Federation was to formalise these discriminatory laws at the federal level through what was to become known as the White Australia policy. For much of our history, our nation did not want people like Jason Day to be a part of it—yet today much of the nation will be sneaking into work late after having stayed home to cheer him on as the pride of this country.

So what has changed in this time? We have. We have made Australian multiculturalism work by working at it. We asked migrants to our country to buy into the Australian bargain. We respect cultural diversity where it is not inconsistent with the fundamental values of liberal democracy and in turn we expect that all Australians work to become invested in our nation's democratic, economic and social life.

Protection from racial discrimination, as enshrined in the Racial Discrimination Act, is a part of this bargain. When passed in 1975, the Racial Discrimination Act made it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of their race in a whole range of areas, including employment, housing and the provision of goods and services. In effect, it made it unlawful to deny the full benefits of Australian citizenship and the benefits of equal treatment on the basis of race. This is a principle that, if anything, has become even more important in the increasingly diverse nation that we live in today. It is particularly important to ensuring the social cohesion that is so necessary for our response to the growing threat of violent extremism in our community. This change was not simply about protecting minorities from overt discrimination, but more broadly at dismantling the institutional racism that pervaded Australian society during the White Australia policy and ensuring that it could never return.

Despite this, after decades of the act being an essential part the legal framework safeguarding our flourishing multicultural and tolerant society, the act still continues under attack from sections in the conservative side of politics. The member for Dawson, a strident critic of the racial hate provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, recently made an extraordinary attack on Australian multiculturalism in this chamber claiming that:

Today's multiculturalism means that the world view and the beliefs that spawn practices like honour killings, child brides or sharia law must be accepted, because they are seen as legitimate values within a particular culture.

With respect, if the member for Dawson believes this, he simply has not been paying attention. The very success of Australian multiculturalism is founded on a rejection of this kind of relativism. These practices that are talked about by the member for Dawson are not accepted in Australia. That is why, in the vanishingly small number of cases where they occur, our legal system does and should respond firmly. It is disingenuous in the extreme to imply that extreme and unlawful practices of this kind are representative of the broader experience of Australian multiculturalism. While I congratulate the member for Herbert for calling out his colleague for the comments at the time, the silence from other members has been deafening. Australian multiculturalism works because we work at it. This is an ongoing obligation on all members of this House.

These politically motivated attacks on this act, and the Human Rights Commission that oversees it, are concerted efforts from sections of the conservative side of politics to undermine legislation that protects minorities and our social cohesion—the very model of Australian multiculturalism. Even today, sections of the Liberal Party are seeking to repeal parts of the act. On 25 March 2014, the Abbott government announced it planned to water down the act be removing the section 18C hate speech provisions from the legislation, opening the door to racial vilification in Australia.

This section of the act was introduced during the Keating government in response to an increase in reports of racially motivated verbal and physical attacks against Asian-Australians in the 1990s—Australians like Jason Day's family and like my own family. It was then, and remains today, a crucial part of the Australian model of multiculturalism. We should remember what makes it work and we should continue to work at it in this chamber.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this motion. I definitely, like the member opposite, support Jason Day, who is battling not only a brutal course and worthy opponents but also a severe case of vertigo whilst carrying the hopes of a country on his shoulders. I look forward to watching what unfolds over the next couple of hours, like my friend the member opposite. I believe my views on this matter are now well known, but I welcome the opportunity this motion presents to have my views recorded in this place. Australia is and always will be a country built on the back of migration. It is important that our nation celebrates this. It is also important that we support a legislative system that reflects the diverse and multicultural country that modern Australia has become.

Whilst this is a reflection of my vision for this country, it is only one of the reasons that I spoke out against proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act last year. I began my journey into politics for one underlying reason: to make this country a better place for my kids and my grandkids. I believe that all Australians, regardless of ethnicity or religious backgrounds, should be able to live in a free society; but I also believe that those who are marginalised or vulnerable in our society should have a legal system that protects them from discrimination. That is a value I hope is reflected in the country that we leave to future generations and to all Australians.

From the outpouring of support for my stance against the proposed changes last year, I was reassured to know that the vast majority of people agree that modern Australians have a right to be protected from racial vilification. I was, of course, delighted when the Prime Minister subsequently removed the discussion from the table. The arguments to change the act stem from a belief that free speech should hold a central place in an open, liberal and democratic society. I agree that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our society and that it has a fundamental role to play in modern Australia. However, I also hold the view that the current act does not restrict that freedom in any impactful way.

There are numerous examples where restrictions on freedom of speech are already existing and accepted by most Australians. Even in this House, a beacon of free speech, we may from time to time be ruled 'out of order' for phrasing an argument in a particular way.

I believe that protecting minority groups from racial vilification is one such restriction that is acceptable and appropriate, especially as individuals in these minority groups are often going through a difficult process of assimilation in their new home country and may not be in a position to ably protect themselves from such abuse. We need a safety net to provide these protections, and we should always look to avoid weakening laws that provide safeguards to the most vulnerable in our community.

Of course, legislation should be reviewed from time to time to ensure that it is continuing to achieve the intended outcomes. However, last year I did not believe that a strong case had been made that major changes to the current legislation were required, and I maintain that view today. The number of complaints made under the act is small, and the number of those complaints that proceed to litigation is even smaller—in fact, minute. Moreover, the immensely valuable and educational conciliation process that is facilitated by the act is also often overlooked.

One of the benefits of being a backbench member of parliament is that the core task of my position is to represent the people of Reid, and to take their concerns to parliament. Within my electorate, this means I have the honour of representing one of the most multicultural seats in Australia. In the period last year when the Attorney-General put this draft legislation out for consultation and forecast some potential changes, I had countless representations in forums, social media, direct contacts and in the street in speaking with the people of Reid. The majority of those people were my constituents. They were worried about these changes, and told me in no uncertain terms. The vast majority of those representations supported the act and I am sure they join with me today in acknowledging the 40th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act and in pledging to continue to work to ensure that Australia remains an inclusive and tolerant society.

In the time I have left I would also like to place on record my support for the role the Human Rights Commission has played over the last 40 years in the administration of the act. I recently joined the Hon. Fred Chaney and shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus and others at an event in Sydney to mark the 40th anniversary of the act and to launch a book by the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, titled, I'm not Racist But ….

The event was a good opportunity to reflect on how far we have come as a nation, but also a reminder that it is incumbent on all of us to continue to stand up to prejudice in all forms. I am sure that all members in this place would agree.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak in support of the member for Gellibrand's motion.

From the start, I think people might be wondering, 'Why is this significant? Why is this parliament noting the 40th anniversary of a piece of legislation?' I think that part of the answer to that comes from the event that was held, mentioned by the member for Reid, on 11 June in Sydney, where we gathered together for the launch of Tim Soutphommasane's book, I'm not Racist But …and also to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the act. In attendance were the Race Discrimination Commissioner, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Penny Wong, the member for Reid, a number of other distinguished guests and me. Each speaker gave a most insightful perspective on why this act is so important.

One area that I think is not recognised as much as it should be is that if it were not for the Racial Discrimination Act we would not have had native title. There would be no Mabo without the Racial Discrimination Act. It was also great to see Gillian Triggs, the President of the Human Rights Commission there and Tim Wilson, the Human Rights Commissioner. All members reflected in very unique ways on the importance of this legislation.

Of course, the act does have a long 40-year history. It was passed in the final months of the Whitlam government in 1975 and really drew upon the pioneering work of attorneys-general, Lionel Murphy and Kep Enderby. For the first time in Australian history this legislation made it unlawful to discriminate against a person based on their race in a whole range of areas, including employment, housing and the provision of goods and services.

This act established the principle that is fundamental in our law to modern Australia, enforcing a powerful message about the kind of Australia we want—a thriving, accepting and respectful multicultural society, one that is inclusive irrespective of where you were born or where your parents may have been born. But I think it is also worth reflecting on the fact that these principles had to be fought for to be enshrined in legislation, and even after the passage of the act it was contested. In 1982 the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland challenged its validity in the High Court in the Koowarta case. And, as I said, it set the stage for the subsequent Mabo decision and native title. It also led the way for other, broader human rights work. Over the next couple of decades the Sex Discrimination Act, the Disability Act and the Age Discrimination Act followed.

So, be in no doubt about the significance of this act and why it is so important to acknowledge it and to fight for it into the future. Forty years since the Whitlam government proudly proclaimed that the Racial Discrimination Act would 'show a clean face to the world in terms of racial matters,' I believe that few pieces of legislation have encapsulated our modern Australian identity as distinctly or profoundly. Going to the words of Attorney-General Kep Enderby at the time, in 1975, he said that this bill:

… will make people more aware of the evils, the hurtful consequences of discrimination and make them more obvious and conspicuous. In this regard the Bill will perform an important educative role.

We know even today how much racial vilification damages the notion of society. It not only goes towards being against those fundamental tenets that I discussed; it also prohibits people from participating in our economy as much as they could.

You only have to look at the public outcry over this government's proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, specifically in respect of 18C and the prohibitions against racist hate speech, to see how much the public recognises and respects these provisions. I acknowledge the words of the member for Gellibrand on this point, and I will add to them. I am yet to hear from the proponents of repealing these protections against racist hate speech. I am yet to have them articulate precisely what it is that they want to say that they cannot say now. I think it would be extremely telling if they could articulate exactly what that is. I was not surprised that a wide variety of groups came together to oppose these changes, including those on the government's own side.

As we rightly come together as a parliament to celebrate this legislation, we need to remember that its progress was hard fought, and we need to ensure that all our equal opportunity laws and institutions are not merely symbols to acknowledge from afar or to tick off from a list. I will end by saying that I remain tremendously optimistic for our society every time I see my three-year-old with her friends. Children do not see race. I look forward to a day when in our society, in this parliament and in our broader community we do not see it either.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Gellibrand for raising this important motion that acknowledges the 40th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. I would also like to acknowledge my coalition colleagues the members for Hughes, Reid and Hasluck, who will also be speaking on this motion, together with the members for Greenway, Melbourne Ports and Fowler. All of them are regular contributors to any conversation or debate in this place that deals with the elimination of discrimination, the promotion of multiculturalism and the protection of human rights.

The Racial Discrimination Act was enacted in response to the Liberal-Nationals government's signing of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in1966. The convention formalised our nation's position to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. This legislation was followed by laws to protect against sexual discrimination, age discrimination and disability discrimination with the Human Rights Commission, formed as a statutory authority to oversee and investigate complaints made under these laws. Last year the Abbott government commenced a community consultation process to look at clause 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to ensure that it was fulfilling its core objectives while also achieving a fine balance with protection for an individual's freedom of speech.

As a result of this process I reached out to the many groups that make up my multicultural electorate and facilitated dozens of conversations on this issue. From community leaders to independent media to school groups, we debated and discussed the importance of protecting both these areas: the grey area that sometimes occupied the space and the challenge to lawmakers to fulfil our democratic responsibility to represent the views of the majority whilst protecting the needs of the minority.

Bennelong is truly a microcosm of multicultural Australia. Our region is blessed with vibrant Chinese and Korean communities occupying each side of the railway tracks in Eastwood. To walk down Rowe Street is akin to being transported to Shanghai or Seoul—without the high rises! As a result of these discussions, I formed the strong view that, when this grey area is encountered, it is our responsibility as lawmakers to stand firmly side by side with our minority groups to ensure that their rights—that everyone's rights—are protected and that no-one should be subject to any form of discrimination because of their race, gender, age, religion or sexual orientation.

Our nation, like so many, does not have a proud colonial history when it comes to the treatment of minority groups, whether it be embracing our Indigenous heritage or working together with Chinese migrants in the goldfields. My first motion in this place celebrated the impact of Chinese migration on Australian society over the past 200 years. Whilst we should never forget tragic incidents like the Lambing Flat riots just over 150 years ago, it is just as important that we celebrate the society we have formed today and the great levels of cross-cultural respect that are on display every day in my Bennelong electorate.

The legislation that we celebrate today has helped to create the modern day dynamic where we celebrate and extoll the virtues of cultural diversity. But these laws have also happened as a result of cultural change. In my previous career I witnessed this change and evolution firsthand. Althea Gibson was the first Black American to win Wimbledon. She was able to have success in Australia and Britain long before she could in the US. She said of playing in Sydney that it was the first time she was able to have a milkshake and a hamburger and know what it was like to feel white. Years later Arthur Ashe, who also won Wimbledon and was a great black American player, was the first allowed to play in South Africa. He did so on the agreement that the crowds had to be integrated. This was one of the first proactive steps of using sport to force this integration. Not long after, when we were playing in Richmond, he was allowed to practise at the Richmond Country Club, where his father had once been a janitor and where black people were not allowed to be members.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleague the member for Gellibrand for bringing this motion forward to acknowledge the 40th anniversary of Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Four decades have now passed and, if we look at Australia's history book, this is a great innovation, one far removed from the former White Australia policy and one that quite frankly now encompasses a very positive attitude to having a broader, more harmonious community settled in this country.

The Racial Discrimination Act—as a matter of fact, in the same year it was brought in—coincided with the Fall of Saigon. We received our first wave of refugees from Vietnam. This wave led to the initial migration of 50,000 people coming here and making Australia home, and quite frankly it was the first major endorsement of recognised settlement of a large body of people in this country. However, historically there have been major gaps in our legal system when it comes to discrimination, particularly in respect of our racial discrimination laws. This led to the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act, which was the very first antidiscrimination and human rights legislation passed by the Commonwealth parliament. Not only does its existence embody Australia's commitment as a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which itself was ratified in September 1975, but the act was groundbreaking in respect of the way it went about fostering social cohesion within the broader Australian community. It represents Australia's new commitment to being a multicultural nation and securing for all Australians, regardless of their background, equality before the law.

In my community, which boasts over 150 nationalities, I regularly get to see cultures on display. I see and visit various temples, mosques, churches and other religious institutions. But moreover, I get to see people who have come and adopted Australia as their home and see their commitment to making this a very positive development here in Australia and one which certainly plays out very much through their children.

Today I am hosting students from the Thomas Hassall Anglican College in my electorate. One of the things they have been studying is the issue of discrimination. I welcome students from the school and I am glad that this debate took place while they are here.

In my electorate, over 30 per cent of people in my electorate come from an Asian background. I also have a very large population in my electorate from the Middle East. The vast majority of people who have come to my electorate are refugees. I spoke about the first migrants from Vietnam. At the moment, migrants who are coming here are fleeing the war in Syria, the conflicts in Iraqi and elsewhere. They come here to settle. They bring their hopes and their dreams to give their families a better way of life.

One of the things I think is very important in their settlement is that they can do so in the full knowledge that they will not be discriminated against in this country. That is why we were very concerned with the attempts last year of trying to prune back the Racial Discrimination Act, particularly in respect to section 18C, which would have made it unlawful for people to act out racial hate speech, which would have a deleterious impact on the harmonious society encouraged in this country.

I commend the efforts of the Australian Human Rights Commission and in particular, the Racial Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane—I should know his name better than that because Tim is actually of a Laotian background— (Time expired).

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Gellibrand. Firstly, I would like to make it crystal clear that I am sure everyone in this House agrees that both racism and any form of religious intolerance is absolutely abhorrent. It is a gravely divisive social force. We in this parliament here and at all levels of government need to do everything we can to eliminate all forms of racism and religious intolerance in this country.

I am sure I concur with all the points raised by all the members speaking so far. But there are a few points I do disagree with other members on this side of the chamber. Certainly we have, I believe, one of the most wonderfully racially tolerant nations in the world. For those who have had the opportunity to travel around the world, certainly we have problems here in Australia. But when I compare the racial harmony that we have in our country to many parts of the rest of the world, we are second to none. We have a proud democratic nation with freedoms where people from all countries of the world have come to our society. They have been able to assimilate, to fit in and also retain parts of their culture and their heritage to make our nation a wonderful place.

We do still have problems with racial intolerance in this country, and we saw in the newspapers this morning an appalling act of violence and racial extremism against a gentleman in Melbourne. Acknowledging we still have problems, the question should be: what is the best antidote going forward? Should we continue with attempts at government regulation and censorship like section 18C or should we actually encourage free and open speech and open debate? The current section 18C provides, it is unlawful that:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person …

In my opinion, the words 'offend' and 'insult' go too far. Rather than government censorship and sweeping racism and religious intolerance under the carpet, and allowing it to fester, I believe that the best way to defeat it is to bring it out in the open. Let us defeat it with free speech. Let us to defeat it with open debate. I believe that is what would be far better for our country.

When we talk about section 18C, it is disappointing to hear all sides of the debate trying to work out what is the best way to defeat racism, but to hear those in favour of 18C maintaining the current levels of censorship and allowing racial intolerance to be swept under the carpet actually attack those in favour of repeal and somehow allowing racist speech is very, very disappointing.

The other part of this motion refers to the Human Rights Commission. It is correct that the Human Rights Commission plays an important part in administering the act. Therefore, it is important that the general public has confidence, trust and faith in the commissioners on the Human Rights Commission. It is regrettable that the public has lost some of that faith, I think, due to two aspects.

Firstly, there was the Human Rights Commission recommendation to give $350,000 so-called compensation to a gentleman who actually bashed his pregnant wife to death with a child's bicycle. This gentleman had a long history of numerous assaults, property damage, wilful damage, obstructing police and drug possession. A psychologist said that this gentleman had a persistent pattern of abnormal emotions and behaviour, and was at high risk of reoffending, and that he continues to use threats to get what he wants. This is a person that the Human Rights Commission recommended be given $350,000 worth of taxpayers' money. Decisions like that undermine the Human Rights Commission.

The other area where the Human Rights Commission have lost some of the public's faith is to do with the timing of their inquiry into children in detention. No government wants to see children in detention. But the fact that that inquiry was originally scheduled under the previous Labor government and was postponed, delayed or held back and done during this government's time actually harmed the reputation of the Human Rights Commission.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Gellibrand for bringing this motion forward. When we consider the history of Australia, particularly the white Australia policy, which Harold Holt abolished, we find that we set in place a mindset around the differences between the cultural groups that reside in this country. The Racial Discrimination Act was an endeavour to set that aside. It is a pity we do not think about people in their capacity as an individual, and the qualities and the richness they have within themselves, and the way in which their ethnicity has shaped the essence of who they are. If we set aside the fact of colour, race or whatever that creates biases then we would not need a racial discrimination act.

I went back to the Attorney-General at the time, Mr Enderby, and read extracts of his second reading. He said, 'The purpose of this bill is to make racial discrimination unlawful in Australia and to provide an effective means of combating racial prejudice in our country.' So he acknowledged it existed. He went on: 'The bill introduces into Australian law for the first time the obligations contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is asserted in this convention that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and the rights that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous. Without any justification, I hardly need to say that I am sure that all members would agree with this.'

He then went on to say: 'These will make people more aware of the evils, the undesirable and unsociable consequences of discrimination, the hurtful consequences of discrimination and make them more obvious and conspicuous. In this regard, the bill will perform an important educative role. In addition, the introduction of legislation will furnish legal background on which to rest charges, reflecting basic community attitudes. The fact that racial discrimination is unlawful will make it easier for people to resist social pressures that result in discrimination.'

I now refer to the Human Rights Commission report Racist violence: report of the national inquiry into racist violence in Australia, initiated by HREOC in 1988 following representations to it about an apparent increase in the incidence of racially motivated violence in Australia. The findings of the national inquiry included:

Racist violence is an endemic problem for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in all Australian States and Territories.

Racist attitudes and practices (conscious and unconscious) pervade our institutions, both public and private.

On the whole, public authorities do not respond effectively to reports of racist violence.

If we consider those in the context of a contemporary Australian society then the impact of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 has brought us a long way forward from where we were. When we consider the impact of the white Australia policy on our northern neighbours and the removal of that by Harold Holt, it changed the make-up of the fabric of a community in which we now readily accept diversity and the qualities that each of those diverse groups bring in the way of food, culture, dance and those things that they deem important.

What is more interesting in the make-up of our society now is the way in which the inclusive nature is much more prevalent than it was when I was a child and the way in which the freedoms that we have are celebrated. The distinctiveness of groups is celebrated annually in many of the events that I attend within my electorate, as of those of many of my colleagues in this chamber. The debates around the importance of section 18C will continue for some time until we as a parliament mature in the way in which we see freedom of speech in respect to the respecting the dignity and the rights of others who are very different to each and every one of us.

In its 40 years, the Racial Discrimination Act has taken us from a point where we did not support the individualism of a particular ethnic group to where we now accept a society that is truly multicultural, that is accepting of diversity and in which we now celebrate our differences in a way that we never used to. I commend this motion to the chamber and I thank the member for Gellibrand.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an honour to speak after the member for Hasluck, who I regard as a friend and who is an example of the very things that he was talking about.

Racism begins with mindless hatred based on difference. No law can stop this irrational emotion, but we can stop people from harming each other because of it. Whether that harm is in the form of discriminating against others in employment and access to services or in undermining their sense of safety and belonging through racial vilification, the Racial Discrimination Act has provided those on the receiving end of racism with the means to fight back in a peaceful, legal and dignified Australian way.

The act was yet another example the lasting social reform enacted by the Whitlam government. It was Australia's first federal human rights legislation and secured equality before the law for all Australians. It was also a fine example of a national government taking the lead to set an example for all Australians. Since that time, all Australian states and territories have enacted similar legislation. Unfortunately, detractors of this act have frequently misunderstood it. As Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, said recently,

The Racial Discrimination Act … is not about punishing racism. Rather, the Act is about protecting people against prejudice.

Contrary to some public commentary, the legislation does not mean that people can be prosecuted and convicted under the law. Nor does it enable media outlets to be ‘shut down’ if they publish or broadcast racially offensive material. The legislation is more modest than this. It works not through coercion but through conciliation.

Over the almost forty years the Racial Discrimination Act has been in operation, more than 6 000 complaints have been resolved. Only a small number of complaints under the Act reach the courts: last year, it was only 3 per cent of complaints finalised by the Commission.

And the law is not only just about remedies. Its impact has been systemic.

Among the more vilified and misunderstood parts of the act is section 18C. Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act were introduced in response to recommendations of major inquiries, including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. These inquiries found that racial hatred and vilification caused psychological harm to their targets and reinforced other forms of discrimination and exclusion. They found that low-level behaviour like this softens the environment for more severe acts of harassment, intimidation and even violence by impliedly condoning such acts.

18C's purpose is to promote tolerance by bringing parties together to discuss and mediate the subject of their complaint and arrive at a conciliated and agreed outcome. Conciliation meetings that are resolved may require the following outcomes: an apology; an agreement to remove offensive material; systemic outcomes, such as changes to policies, procedures and training of staff or individuals; or sometimes even the payment of compensation. I was relieved when the current government dropped its plans to abolish 18C. A campaign led by Andrew Bolt, the Institute of Public Affairs and its prodigy Tim Wilson was dropped in the favour of the wall-to-wall community outrage. As the great philosopher of the 21st century, Isaiah Berlin, said:

… total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.

Section 18C reinforces pluralist Australia and complaints are resolved by a process of reconciliation. It worked very well under the well-known socialist former Prime Minister John Howard. It is worth quoting from last year's submission by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to the Abbott government's exposure draft, when the government attempted to change 18C:

In 2003, the Commonwealth - which was then under a Coalition government headed by Prime Minister John Howard – intervened in Toben v Jones to defend the validity of Part IIA of the RDA and specifically the use of the words “offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate” in section 18C. The Commonwealth argued “that acts done in public which are objectively likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate and which are done because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin are likely to incite other persons to racial hatred or discrimination or to constitute acts of racial hatred or discrimination”, and the court accepted that submission.

In the few seconds that I have got left to speak, I will say that it is very odd that in a situation where you are criticised for denying other people's liberties, as we were by the Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, that as a result of my criticisms of Andrew Bolt that were published in the Guardianexplaining that the act is about conciliating racial hatred and not persecuting Andrew Bolt; I was in fact criticising Justice Bromberg, who in my view unfairly and in overboard way found against Mr Bolt—I have been banned from the Andrew Bolt program. The great speaker for civil liberties and the man who insisted that this was all about persecuting free speech has banned me from that program! (Time expired)

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the member for Gellibrand for moving this motion on the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. There can be areas of disagreement, but the fundamentals are sound. In the way in which he expressed himself as he moved the motion, I was pleased that he differentiated himself from some debates held at other times that have not acknowledged the core values that hold us together. It is a compact in which we acknowledge our diversity—that is, we are people of different races, different cultures, different faiths—but also that we have certain overriding principles which bind us together as a nation. These principles were well set out in a document called the National agenda for multicultural Australia. It was produced at the time of the Hawke government. Its principal author, I think, was a very prominent Victorian, Sir James Gobbo. He articulated the way in which I see modern Australia—very diverse in terms of its roots but an example to the rest of the world about how you can come together. It is never perfect—nothing is perfect—but, when you look at a country that has 25 per cent of its population or thereabouts overseas born, we ought to be, if race is a problem, more challenged than anybody else, and we are not.

Our core values reflect gender equity, for instance. They reflect respect for parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and English as the national language. It is important, as we have this debate about what Australian citizenship means, that we understand the nature of our diversity. I do not think of these matters only in terms of people of particular races. I am focused on my own grandchildren. I have grandchildren who can say they are Norman, Irish, Scottish, German Jewish, Tongan, Chinese and Samoan. You may wonder how they get that mix. It is very colourful. They are extraordinarily talented. They are young but will be, I am in no doubt, great Australians. It reflects something of what we are. I think we need to be very proud of that. We need to defend it and defend it vigorously.

I would defend it by advocacy rather than by trying to prosecute people for alleged breaches. In relation to human rights issues, I am occasionally troubled about what I see as jurisprudence that develops over time which sometimes takes us further than we might otherwise want to be. Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of 18C. I would not have been arguing for its repeal given that there was one case in which it was suggested that perhaps it went a bit far. I think it could be addressed in another way, and I would like to just put on record the suggestion I would make. If these matters are going to be pursued by prosecution, or through the courts, you might properly require the Attorney-General's fiat to be able to initiate the litigation. That is a process that is adopted in other parts of our law to ensure that, if matters are going to proceed, they proceed in the public interest. I offer that as a constructive suggestion if it is thought that we ought to look at these issues again.

But let me once again affirm very strongly my view. I think there is no place for racial discrimination; there is no place for discrimination against people because of their faith; there is no place for discrimination against people on the basis of their culture. As I have said before, we remain an example to the rest of the world about how you can live together successfully. I commend those who have participated in this debate.

Debate adjourned.