Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need to protect Australians from racial hate speech.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the government has announced, on Harmony Day of all days, when the rest of the world is celebrating the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, that it wants to give licence to more racial hate speech. Of all the extraordinary days to make an extraordinary decision, the government has chosen this one. They decided for the backbenchers who they rolled in making this decision, the number of people on that side who have taken a principled stand, that they would smuggle away and bring the bill into the Senate first, not introduce it here. That is not because it is the Attorney-General's bill, because last year we had amendments to the Native Title Act—that was a bill belonging to the Attorney-General, and there was no appropriation attached to it. It could easily have been started in the Senate. The reason they started this bill in the Senate is simple—they think their own members of parliament are going to be able to hide. Well they cannot. No member on that side of the chamber can hide from answering the simple question: do they want to lower the bar on racial hate speech in Australia?

It takes a pretty extraordinary human being to be elected to this place, where you get to be a voice for people who need your help, and decide the people you need to speak on behalf of are the racial bigots. It is a pretty extraordinary choice that people make when they come into this place and decide that when they see an example of racial hate speech the person whose voice is not loud enough, that the person they need to stand up for, is not the person on the receiving end of the racial hate speech—it is the abuser who they think is just is not allowed to say enough. Be in no doubt, members on this side will oppose anything that involves lowering the bar on what is deemed acceptable hate speech in this country. No-one is fooled by the Prime Minister's line 'we're strengthening the act'. Strengthening the act!

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

If their argument, as the argument of the poor interjector who just cannot wait for his turn and who, when he got the chance to ask a question today, decided to ask it on a completely different issue because of the humiliation of the answer that would follow—those opposite are in the situation now where they have to answer a basic question. When the bar is lowered—and it has to be being lowered; it cannot be being strengthened if the argument is freedom of speech; if the argument is freedom of speech then it must be by this change you are allowed to say more—what more will people be allowed to say? The answer will be a form of racial hatred. How on earth is this country ever going to be improved by more racial hatred? This might be a dinner party conversation over cocktails and champagne for those opposite, with that brand of champagne that the Prime Minister keeps mentioning that we look bewildered about. But it is real for the person who this afternoon, on the train line that I live on, will find herself being racially abused on the way home. It is real for the kids in the local shopping centre in my part of Sydney who will come home trembling after their parents have been abused.

Government members interjecting —

I hear the interjection from those opposite. They really do not know.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Hughes.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe it is because they have too many constituents who attended the Cronulla riots. I do not know. But, certainly, it is the situation that, for people who do not get their voices heard by those on the opposite side of this parliament, racial hate speech is real. It is real, it hurts and it is demeaning. The last thing this parliament should be doing is changing the law to allow more of it.

Those opposite claim that somehow the language at the moment just allows too much in. The Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Kiefel, when she was Federal Court Justice said to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate are 'profound and serious effects', 'not to be likened to mere slights'. Yet, if this government gets its way, three of those words will be gone.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting —

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein is warned.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How on earth do you decide that it is too extreme to have a law saying it is wrong to humiliate someone? What sort of human being looks at people who are being racially abused and says humiliation is okay, insults are okay, offence is okay. If their argument is that it is just words, why do they not object to defamation law. If it is just words, why do they not object to gag clauses that prevent non-government organisations from speaking out against the government. Why do they not object to clauses that prevent employees from talking about what happens at their workplace. The answer is simple: they are the forms of freedom of speech that they get a benefit from curtailing. They can imagine themselves being defined. They can imagine themselves being the minister who does not want the NGOs speaking out against them. They can imagine themselves being in the situation where they are an employer and they do not want their employees to be able to say something, and so they whack it into a work contract. But the moment it is a form of freedom of speech that they might want to use because they would never be the victim of then they say, 'Oh, no, we can change the law on those.'

If you believe in freedom of speech, then why does freedom of speech only become a public issue if it involves getting stuck in people on the basis of their race? If you believe in freedom of speech, why is it that when you see the person being abused on the train you decide the abuser is the victim who you want to stand up for? How many times have we heard the Prime Minister when he talks about family and domestic violence say, 'Not all disrespect leads to violence, but all violence begins with a lack of respect'? Well, that is not just true of family violence. Racial violence in this country is real. If those opposite think that racial violence and racial hatred have nothing to do with each other, then get into the real world. Get into the world beyond the IPA. Get into the world beyond their little dinner parties where they can chat about how wonderful these issues are in theory. It is not theoretical when you are dealing with a child traumatised through having seen how their parents are treated or when you are talking to woman who is wondering whether she can continue to keep her job because of what is said to her on the way to and from work. These examples are real.

Government members interjecting —

If those opposite want to say all of this would be covered by 'harassment', all of this would be covered in exactly the same way, then how has it got anything to do with freedom of speech? If the amendment changes nothing, then what has it got to do with freedom of speech? The answer is really simple. Those opposite simply do not want to say out loud what it is they want people to be allowed to say because they know the answer is offensive. They are fooling nobody with these claims. As I say, this is real.

For those opposite who think some of their members will be protected by the bill starting in the Senate, no it will not. It will be interesting to see which of the five on that side get chosen to be given permission to speak today. I bet they have chosen their number very, very carefully. I bet there are some people who have made their position very clear over the years that have folded today. Make no mistake, no-one expected that the member for Wentworth would be less sympathetic to opposing racial hate speech than his predecessor as Prime Minister.

No-one thought we would see the day when the leader of the Liberal Party was overtaken in decency by the leader of the National Party in their party room in deciding how they should deal with racial hatred. But we are in new times, where we have a Prime Minister who stands for nothing. Today the end of the Turnbull prime ministership is complete. There is nothing left of that man—imagine after all those years of wanting to be Prime Minister and now realising that his time will come and go without ever having a government that he could believe in or that anyone else could believe in. I urge those opposite who have stood up for this issue in the past that, when the issue comes here, if you are true to your word, cross the floor. If you are true to your word, you will get a choice to either stand with the nutters who have been arguing that this is all about freedom of speech or to stand with your communities and the victims of racial hatred—(Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to 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.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—of all days—we have seen a stunning and shameful capitulation by the Prime Minister to the right wing of his party. The Prime Minister could not have been more definitive in his comments up until a few months ago. Just to take a single example, in October 2016 the Prime Minister told Neil Mitchell on radio:

We have no plans to amend Section 18c.

And he said:

We did not take an 18c amendment proposal to the election in this year in 2016.

Now, just three months into the new year, the Prime Minister has buckled.

This Prime Minister used to stand for something. He used to have courage and principles. How far away that feels now. This Prime Minister is prepared to trade away protections for Australia's multicultural communities in order to save his own political skin. When presented with the choice of siding with bigots or siding with Australia's multicultural communities, this Prime Minister has chosen to side with bigots. It is disgraceful. This sustained ideological vendetta against section 18C is beyond all sense. The government are two sitting weeks out from the budget, and are they talking about housing affordability? Are they talking about fixing the deficit? Are they talking about doing something about reducing the national debt or doing something about the penalty rate cuts that are being inflicted on 700,000 Australian workers? No. They are fixated on making it easier to be a racist in Australia. Their priorities are completely backwards, and they will be punished by the electorate for it.

Make no mistake: any change to section 18C is a weakening of laws against racist hate speech, and it sends a terrible message to multicultural Australia. Replacing the words 'offend, insult and humiliate' with a single word—'harass'—is not a harmless change. It destroys the clarity that has been achieved through 20 years of court decisions which have set the bar high for successful complaints under section 18C. These four terms—'offend', 'insult', 'humiliate' and 'intimidate'—are taken together as a whole. They are a composite phrase and have been interpreted by the courts as setting a high bar for successful complaints. In the words of the now Chief Justice of the High Court, Susan Kiefel, in a judgement on an 18C case in 2001—'To offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate are profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.' There you have it—the existing law is clear, the existing law works and the existing law does not enable vexatious complaints without merit to be upheld in the courts.

Has the Prime Minister and his right wing ever bothered to read the facts about section 18C? Are they aware that, in the 21-year history of 18C, only 96 cases have actually reached court? That is under five a year. Changing the wording of this law will introduce a new destructive ambiguity and a new uncertainty into section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which may, in fact, lead to an increase in the number of court cases. Prime Minister Turnbull and his right-wing cronies are yet to explain what it will mean to be 'harassed'—that is the new term—by racial hate speech. Will victims of racial abuse have to have proof of repeated attacks in order to make a successful complaint? Is it going to be enough to be shouted at in public? What if someone shouts racial abuse from a car and then drives past—does that count as harassment? Why is the change necessary and what practical difference will it make?

They do not have practical answers to these practical questions, because they have not even considered the implications of what they are proposing. This push to change section 18C is being driven by blind ideology and nothing else. If this government thinks it can get away with presenting this change as 'nothing to see here', it is deeply, deeply wrong. Labor will fight. Labor will mobilise in the same way that we did in 2014. Liberal MPs that are clinging onto slim margins in their electorates will feel it. The Prime Minister himself will feel it and he will regret his decision to ever give in to the right wing of his party. Labor made our choice long ago. We stand with multicultural Australia and we stand against bigotry. We will fight these changes to section 18C and we will not give up until section 18C is safe once more.

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

What a dark view the Labor Party have just shown that they have of their fellow Australians. You simply do not trust your fellow Australians with free speech because you do not believe in free speech yourselves. You want to see a government bureaucracy, headed by the likes of Mrs Triggs, to monitor and control not only the speech of Australians but the type of cartoons that they can draw.

I have a different view. I have a different view of the average Australian. I believe the average Australian is good and decent and rejects racism in all manners that it may come up. I believe that the average Australian has a sense of humour and a disrespect of pompous authority. But they have had a gut full of political correctness. It is simply a corrosive toxin that is undermining our Australian culture.

The member for Isaacs says today that section 18C is clear; it works; it has clarity. Let me go through what happened to the late Bill Leak. This is from his submission to the parliamentary inquiry only a few months ago. He said:

I was put through two months of incredible stress by the Commission’s investigation—

That is the Australian Human Rights Commission—

The first complainant … didn’t have to justify anything she did. No one asked her any questions and it didn’t cost her a cent … the tortuous process had thrown my life into a state of utter chaos, and it’s not over yet. Three months after the cartoon was published, two more complaints were received and accepted by the Commission … So now, two months after being notified of the first complaint and four months after the publication of the cartoon, the possibility that I may yet be required to defend myself in court still hovers, like a dark cloud, over my life.

Two weeks ago, on Wednesday evening, in his final speech, Bill Leak talked about how he had to flee from Islamist terrorists and move to a safe house. He said:

… last year I realised there’s another group of people who are just as capable of making life hell for me if they fail to be amused by my wit and artistry.

Of course he was being facetious.

It’s just my luck that causing offence has been made an offence at the same time that taking offence has become fashionable. So now there’s a mob that won’t only punish you if your cartoon offends them, they’ll punish you if it's offended someone else. They may be a little less murderous than your Islamist terrorists, but they’re no less unhinged and dangerous. They’re also driven by the same authoritarian impulse to silence anyone who transgresses against the unwritten laws of political correctness. I’m talking about the thought police at that rogue totalitarian outfit, the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Thirty-six hours later Bill Leak was dead of a massive heart attack. And you come in here and claim that section 18C is working fine and you do not want to change a syllable. If you cannot see that there is a problem with what happened to Bill Leak and the QUT students, then I say shame on the lot of you. Shame on you all.

What is also disappointing is that the program that we heard that Labor are going to run out—the campaign against this—is actually divisive and separates Australians. It tells the minority that they need protection from racist Australians and all that is there to protect them is 18C. This breeds division and dissent in our society. That is the campaign that you lot are about to run. So I would ask you to think twice. Look at what these changes are. They are minor changes to clarify the act so that what happened to Bill Leak will never happen to any Australian ever again. That is what we want these changes for.

We hope that Labor get on board with this. We do not want to see this program of dividing one Australian from another by this false campaign that they have got. I hope that they change their attitude. The average Australian is decent and good—(Time expired)

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Barton, I remind the member for Isaacs that he had his turn. He has been constantly interjecting. He is warned.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker, the member for Hughes, said that all Australians are decent people. I hope that is true. It is true in the main, but let me read you a tweet that I received this morning, and then I want the member for Hughes to back in what he has just said. It says: '@LindaBurneyMP: Why are you Abos allowed to harass people for dollars outside grocery stores? You are uneducated drug addicts and disgusting. Change it.'

She is talking about 18C. She is talking about what you people are about to try and do. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—what a mess! What a total mess of trying to weaken 18C on a day that is about the elimination of racial discrimination. People that have never experienced racism cannot possibly stand in the shoes of those that have. Many of the people that are advocating for these changes, that are so passionate about these changes, have not stood in the shoes of Aboriginal people, have not stood in the shoes of people from a non-English-speaking background and have not stood in the shoes of people that represent those people. That is very, very clear, or you would not be advocating the nonsense that you are advocating. To say that 'insult, offend, humiliate' are not strong in relation to replacing them with the word 'harass' is just a complete nonsense. 'Insult, offend, humiliate' are exactly the effects of racial vilification and hate speech. Harassment is about being and feeling annoyed; it is not the deep feelings of insult, it is not the deep feelings of offence and it is certainly not the deep feelings of humiliation. How does 'harass' replace these three descriptors? It does not replace these three descriptors.

Look at the hypocrisy, look at the cowardice of how this is being dealt with by the government—and I do say the cowardice. These changes are not being introduced into this House, where they can be debated, where they can be voted on, where the government has the numbers by one and where, therefore, the government would probably win the argument. The cowardly way in which this government is dealing with this piece of legislation is by introducing it to the upper house, where it is clear that these changes are not going to be successful. Therefore, in the normal scheme of things these changes to the legislation will not make it into this House, thereby saving the Prime Minister's face. That is what this is about. I wonder how the large Jewish community of the seat of Wentworth feel about their local representative. I wonder how they feel about the fact that this person, our Prime Minister, has slowly and surely diminished, day by day, by wiping out what he stood for six or eight months ago. This, as has been said, is the last part of that diminution of this Prime Minister. He now stands for nothing. He stands for nought. He stands for nil.

To these people opposite, who are advocating these changes and saying that they are doing it because it is going to guarantee free speech in this country, I repeat the question asked by Anne Aly today: what is it that you want to say after these changes that you cannot say now? I challenge you to be able to articulate that. You have not made the case in six years about the need for these changes, you have not made the case in the last six weeks, you have certainly not made the case in the last six days and you have not made the case in the last 24 hours. There has not been one piece of articulation where you can explain the questions that were asked in the House today. I say to you: if you really want to advocate to protect freedom of speech in this country, desist from what you are doing. It makes no sense, it is mischief-making and you are in fact undermining your own leader. Let's be honest: that is what this is really all about.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very important to start this debate in a respectful tone and to acknowledge the fact that there are differences of opinion, but in the end we have to preserve, protect and advance freedom of speech so we can deal with and discuss difficult and challenging ideas while at the same time making sure that all people in this country are free from harassment. That is the basis upon which the government has put forward this proposal. It is not just about strengthening the law; it is about promoting an idea of increasing respect. But one of the cheap party tricks used by so many people in this debate has been to ask the simple question that they think is so smart: what is it that you cannot say that you would like to say? I can tell you, as I have written about this subject matter many times.

For instance, a couple of years ago, a man by the name of Anthony Mundine did an interview on Channel 7's Sunrise program. During his interview with Andrew O'Keefe, Mundine said Aboriginality and the 'choice' of homosexuality were incompatible, and homosexuality should not be shown on prime-time television—not my words; his words. The basis of his comment—again, not my words; his words—was 'Aboriginal law'. At the time, I served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, and it was not actually clear what I could say in terms of condemning the basis of his commentary about people like myself. That is at the heart of what needs to be addressed in the reform of this law: whether we can stand up and speak out against bigotry that comes from ethnic communities towards other minority groups as well as other ethnic groups. Are we going to have a test in law that establishes something that is consistent, that is not just about people expressing difficult and challenging ideas? I will defend Mr Mundine's right to say that awful, awful thing; it is about whether he did it in a harassing way which sought to limit other people exercising their freedom or not.

When it comes down to it, we know that there is good precedence for changing the law exactly as has been proposed. I need to remind the members opposite that they used to argue that we should keep 18C because it was preceded by three independent inquiries, and they supported the current law—until you actually go and do the research and look at it. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody is a matter that is of very significant relevance to the previous member, and I respect the legitimacy in which you raise the issue. Let's understand what the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody actually recommended—that there should be a federal civil offence against racial vilification, but that should exclude demonstrations against the behaviour of particular countries, publications or performances of works of art, and the serious and non-inflammatory discussion of ideas of public policy—in short, what the government is currently proposing. It does not included 'offend, insult, humiliate' at all. The royal commission explicitly counselled for the definition of vilification to be based on the spirit of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial violence, discrimination or hostility—again, not 'offend, insult, humiliate'. That was the royal commission, not me.

Then there was the 1991 report, by the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, on the national inquiry into racist violence. In this report, the commission called for the creation of a civil offence against 'incitement of racial hostility', 'an express prohibition of racist harassment', as well as a federal crime against 'racial violence'. The commission also recommended the creation of an offence of 'incitement to racial violence'.

Finally, there was the Australian Law Reform Commission's 1992 report, titled Multiculturalism and the law, which examined the issue of racial speech. It recommended a civil offence that supported making incitement to racist hatred and hostility unlawful. While it provided no explicit definition of racial hatred, it is clear that the intention was to focus predominantly on speech that could act as a precursor to violence. Even then, one commissioner in that inquiry dissented from the recommendation, expressing the view that 'in a democratic and pluralist society freedom of expression is of special importance, which may necessitate tolerance of obnoxious and hateful views which do not incite violence'.

This is extremely important. What it shows is that the three independent inquiries that were used as the basis for the introduction of this law—independent inquiries, not parliamentary inquiries that looked at different parts of legislation, and politicians deciding what they thought it should be. Actual independent inquiries, including a royal commission, considered this law and never recommended the current one, and said we should focus on harassment.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite frankly, Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that will stand up for them, not a government that is so wracked by its own internal divisions that it would put them at risk by removing their rights to protection. This is a government that is united in their attack against workers, united in their support for tax breaks for the big end of town, united in their disdain for Australian pensioners and Australia's most vulnerable, yet divided on the rights of Australians for protection from racial and ethnic hate speech. It is a government that is using section 18C to create an ideological divide within its own party lines and that is beholden to the far right on its backbench. And of all days to do this, it has chosen today—a day that coincides with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

On 21 March 1960 police in Sharpeville, South Africa opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration against the apartheid pass laws. Proclaiming the day in 1966, the UN General Assembly called on the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. Harmony Day—as we celebrate it here in Australia—is more than just about eating exotic food and wearing exotic clothing. It is more than just celebrating our great cultural diversity by having some naan bread with your lunch and finishing off with some Turkish delight after dinner. It is more than just paying lip service to those who continue to face real barriers to participation because of the way they look, because of the clothes they wear or even because of their foreign-sounding names. It is about respect. It is about fostering a society in which we respect all, regardless of their race, their colour, their ethnicity, their cultural heritage or their religion. It is a day for promoting substantive equality by eliminating barriers to participation for all people. It is a day when we reflect on who we are as a nation and how we can remain vigilant against racism, discrimination and the hate speech that divide us.

As I look over the divide to the other side of this chamber, I see a government made up of people who have never had to defend themselves because of their race—with a few notable exceptions. I see a government made up of people—with a few notable exceptions—who have never felt the sting of race hate and never had to sit alone and cry tears for their children, who are subjected to hatred and discrimination for no reason other than their ethnicity, race or religion. I see a government made up of people who are unable to stand up for those in their electorates who have to deal with race hate on a regular basis, and that makes me sad.

This year's theme for the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration. The theme acknowledges that every person is entitled to human rights without discrimination and that the rights to equality and nondiscrimination are cornerstones of human rights law. How ironic then that this government is today talking about removing the rights of Australians to recourse for racially and ethnically based hate. How ironic that this government is today talking about removing the provisions that for several decades have served this country well in protecting thousands of its citizens from racial and ethnic hatred. Perhaps they think that it, too, is a gift.

I want to particularly address the discussion around removing the words 'offend' and 'insult' in section 18C and replacing them with 'harass'. Harassment, by its definition, leaves it open to argue that the offending behaviour must constitute an ongoing and protracted campaign against a person because of a characteristic such as race. Section 18C currently operates so as to capture some of the forms of racial harassment because it captures acts which humiliate and insult. In other words, harassment is already implied in the act, already used in the consideration of complaints.

The inquiry did not recommend any changes to the law. This actually has the member for Goldstein's tiny little fingerprints all over it. It is a sad indictment of the ability of those members of this parliament to represent all Australians if they cannot, or will not, attempt to stand up for the rights of the people they represent. Instead of trying to take away the right to recourse and protection, this government would better spend its time—(Time expired)

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a migrant of Eurasian heritage, I see the need to protect ethnic and racial minorities on the one hand but I also see the duty to protect mainstream Australians from situations of reverse discrimination. As I said in my maiden speech, multiculturalism and reconciliation is a two-way street of give and take, with neither group taking advantage of or having a lend of the other. The sentiment in the proverbial pub is often resentment that sometimes ethnic minorities use the provisions of the law to take things too far. Our challenge is to make a law that is fair to all.

I have listened with interest to the members who have contributed to this debate. As chair of the inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia, I, along with other members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have received extensive and substantial evidence from submitters, which demonstrates that the balance between protection from racial discrimination and freedom of expression is an issue about which many Australians have a keen interest.

The issue of free speech as it relates to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has attracted significant public interest in recent years following a number of high-profile cases in which the mainstream public became concerned that justice did not appear to be done and that ordinary Australians were being penalised by a law and a system which inflicted substantial costs and inordinate time delays on respondents to complaints concerning matters that did not appear to offend mainstream community standards. The government needs to ensure that resources are being directed at preventing material racial discrimination and serious conduct resulting in harm, violence or incitement to violent acts—not cartoons and trivial matters.

Many members of the public mistakenly believe that if section 18C is amended it will permit abusive and vilifying behaviour based on race, not taking into account that there are already other legal protections in force against incitement to violence, harassment or intimidation. As I said in my first speech in this House on 9 December 2013:

... as a nation we must address the issues of multiculturalism and reconciliation, whilst preserving the fundamental character and values of our Australian identity. These complex social processes are by necessity two-way streets. There has to be a degree of give and take to promote a balanced approach to the competing goals of diversity, assimilation and integration in our emerging national identity.

From my own experience I can attest to the value of free speech in interacting with people of different cultures and fully participating in my local community.

Much has changed in Australian society since section 18C was introduced to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995 during the Keating government; hence the need to revisit what words actually mean in contemporary society. In the current era of political correctness, the threshold of what 'offends' has shifted dramatically. It has been reported in the press that there have been instances where celebrating Christmas by singing Christmas Carols in public places has been deemed as being 'offensive' to minorities. The inquiry viewed freedom of speech as it relates to constructive criticism and open debate in the context of a workplace, social or public setting where it ought to be permissible to discuss culturally sensitive matters in the normal course of business. Our duty is to govern for all Australians, and that includes mainstream Australians who feel that their right to free speech is being infringed by political correctness and the overzealous application of laws such as section 18C. Mainstream Australians deserve the same rights as racial and ethnic minorities. It is important that the law does not promote reverse discrimination.

The government's objective is to practically simplify the law so that, where there is a dispute over cultural sensitivities in the workplace, in public or in a social setting, ordinary Australians in the suburbs and towns will be able to resolve their differences with minimal input from the referee or umpire in a way that is affordable and timely. We are not talking about sheep stations; we are dealing with offences at the lower end of the spectrum of 'insult' and 'offend' which happen occasionally in the course of everyday social interactions. From a common sense perspective, what we are trying to achieve is the protection of ethnic and racial groups from harm and detriment— (Time expired) PETER KHALIL MP

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to put the same question to those on the government benches that we on this side have all been asking—and we still do not have an answer. What do you possibly want people to say that they cannot already say now? I get it: at least some of you want to change 18C because it is about free speech. But what racial hate speech do you consider so acceptable that it is currently being curtailed by 18C?

Today is Harmony Day. It is a day held to celebrate our cultural diversity and respect for everyone who calls Australia home, no matter where we came from. I have always argued we should not just tolerate but embrace our diversity. It is a strength of our multicultural society. Our multiculturalism works because we do not have to choose between our identities. If you are of Egyptian heritage, like me or the member for Cowan, or Greek, Vietnamese, Ethiopian or Lebanese, you should and can be a proud to be Australian and at the same time be proud of your cultural heritage. Yet this government has chosen today, Harmony Day 2017—today of all days—to announce that they are proposing to gut section 18C of the RDA.

They are proposing to gut what has been one of the solid foundations of our successful multicultural society. For over 20 years, section 18C has protected our community against racial hate speech. But over on that side they have selective amnesia. They forget that there is a subsequent section, section 18D, that protects free speech for members of the press, artists, academics and anyone who is genuinely communicating their views in the public interest. Sections 18C and 18D, introduced by the Keating government, survived 11 years of the Howard government and were maintained when Labor returned to power. These governments all understood the need to maintain laws against race hate speech.

I feel sorry for the member for Moore, the previous speaker, because he chaired a committee that made no recommendations for any change to 18C. The proposed change to 18C really is just another destructive obsession of the far right-wingers, who have hijacked this dysfunctional government. They have forced their own Prime Minister to change his position—which, albeit, is not too difficult to do—in spite of his repeated claims, time and time again, that he had no intention to pull apart the laws that have served us so well for decades. These changes remove the clarity achieved through 20 years of judicial decision-making. The PM has been rolled by those who—to use the words of his own Attorney-General—want the 'right to be bigots'. Was he serious? How ridiculous! How disgusting! And what a complete misunderstanding of the law by the first law officer of this land. No-one has a right to be a bigot. We have a right to free speech and freedom of expression, but that comes with a responsibility to exercise that right with some basic decency. We cannot, under the law, all shout 'Fire!' in a cinema. Neither can anyone shout racial abuse without legal consequence. I learnt that in the first year of law school.

This is personal for me and for millions of Australians. As a son of migrants from Egypt, growing up in a housing commission in the seventies and eighties, I experienced racist hate speech firsthand. I have been called a 'wog', a 'sandnigger' and things that are much worse and that are best not repeated in this place. There is nothing more vile than racism, and there can be no good in allowing it to happen. It is ugly, it is hateful and it shakes the core of one's being as a human being. It brings the individuals who use it and the society that condones it down into the abyss of hate and division. And of course it severely affects and deeply hurts the victims throughout their lives. It goes against the basic decency and fairness that should be the foremost factor in our relations with each other. Nobody deserves to endure abuse based on their race or ethnicity, and those who use racial slurs as a weapon deserve to be—must be—held to account by the law. That is what this act does. That is what section 18C does, and it has done it so well for decades.

I know that the majority of Australians abhor racism, and section 18C reflects those values. We on this side of the House—Labor—support a modern multicultural Australia where people are not subjected to racism and hate speech without legal consequences. We stand on this principle with multicultural Australia. We wish this was not a fight we had to have in 2017. There are far more vital issues in Australia, which we are focused on—Medicare, and fighting for penalty rates and for access to education and health care. Watering down Australia's race hate laws will not create a single job, build a single road or benefit our healthcare or education systems.

This Prime Minister is doing nothing to stand up for ethnic communities. But we will oppose hate speech and our voices will join across this land to oppose these unnecessary and ideological changes. We do so because the Racial Discrimination Act makes Australia a better country.

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

I previously spoke in the Federation Chamber about this issue of the Racial Discrimination Act. Firstly, I would like to say that this is an issue where fair minds can differ. The amendments to section 18C of the act are not a watering down of this important piece of legislation. Rather, they act to strengthen them.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.