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

My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister has given an extensive interview to Fairfax papers about the watering down of protections against racist hate speech, an issue he says:

… lives in the extremities of the bell curve. Where do you meet those people? At party meetings, they are absolutely blessed people and they are terribly politically involved and they have an intense interest in some of the minutiae of debate. They come into your office to rant and rave about it, all four of them.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister's statement reflect government policy, and can the Prime Minister name all four?

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

The Prime Minister will answer the question, because at the very end—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

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

I will hear from the Leader of the House on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, honestly, we have a pretty long bow in this building about questions to the Prime Minister, but how on earth is that question within the Prime Minister's responsibilities, especially the end of it? None of those points are points made by the Prime Minister.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members on my left will cease interjecting.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, while I am sure he is happy to answer it, the point is we have to draw the line somewhere with what is or is not within the standing orders.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members on my left will cease interjecting, or I am going to ask the Leader of the House to begin all over again. I have listened very carefully to the question. The Leader of the House makes a reasonable point—that most of the question, which took the entire 30 seconds, was quotations and not relevant to the Prime Minister. There was one very small aspect of the question that asked whether the statements reflected government policy. As the Prime Minister is responsible for government policy—I have tried to be consistent—I am going to rule the question in order. But I am flagging, as I have flagged before, that questions that are just completely out of order, apart from a very small number of words, I do not think are going to have a very long life under my speakership, because I think it is an abuse.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except if they're funny, Mr Speaker!

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

Well, Member for Grayndler, you did not ask the question. The Prime Minister has the call on this occasion.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am glad you have acknowledged that the member for Grayndler has a personality that perhaps his colleague is not able to bring to bear to make even a dull question humorous—so you are clearly earning the pleasure of the support of the member for Grayndler.

The government's policy is contained in the legislation that has been presented in the Senate, and the policy is to ensure that our laws are stronger, fairer and clearer, that section 18C is an effective law that protects Australians from racial vilification and also protects free speech, one of the very foundations of our parliament, of our democracy, of our nation. Getting the balance right is absolutely critical.

I was asked who supported changes to 18C. It is a very long list. The criticism of the language has come from right across the political spectrum. I quoted yesterday Chief Justice James Spigelman and former commissioner, Irene Moss. But it is a very long list, including many members of the Labor Party, who have made the point that the language lacks the credibility to be an effective law.

One of the more remarkable things about the Labor Party's opposition to these changes is that they also oppose a change which would reinstate the original intent of the law as set out by the Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch when he introduced the bill. The original intent of the law was that the test of whether conduct offended the section was to be judged by the standards of a reasonable member of the Australian community as a whole. Apparently that is not acceptable to the Labor Party. Apparently Australians as a whole are not to be trusted. Well, we put our faith in the Australian people. We believe in the fundamental decency and good sense of Australians and we are committed to them and their freedoms. We support them, and that is the policy of the government—a more effective law, a clearer law that better protects freedom of speech and better protects Australians against racial vilification.

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

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

The member for Brand will cease interjecting.