Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

I start by agreeing with the remarks of Senator Singh that she made at the end. I encourage the Australian community to participate in the consultation process around these changes too. That is the entire reason that a consultation draft of legislative changes proposed by the government has been released, because it is a consultation draft, it is open for people to give feedback and it is open to improvement. I welcome the fact that that is the process that the government has undertaken. I have confidence that through that process the views of the community will be heard and the right balance will ultimately be found in legislative changes that are brought to this place.

I abhor racism, I abhor homophobia and I abhor religious intolerance. I believe deeply that the vast majority, if not every single one, of the members and senators in this place shares those sentiments. This debate around the Racial Discrimination Act is not a debate about whether or not some views are offensive. It is not even a debate about whether or not we should speak out, as leaders of the Australian community, against some of those views that we find to be offensive. Of course we should speak out, of course we should argue against those views that we find offensive and of course we should take a leadership role in that regard.

This debate is about law. It is about the laws of this country and it is about when it is that someone should have recourse to legal proceedings because of what someone else has said, when it is that someone should be able to engage through legal action purely because of what someone else has said. Ultimately this is, of course, about drawing lines in the sand, and there will always be grey areas in an action like this on either side of those lines. We discovered a couple of years ago that, for much of the community, there was concern that the way the laws were currently structured inhibited political debate to too great an extent. As a nation that treasures its freedoms, we should be respecting the freedom of speech just as much as we respect the right to protect those minority groups, those Australians who may be subject to racism, to homophobia or to religious intolerance from activities that would bring harm to them.

As a believer of free speech, I am one who looks back on the quotes of some of those in the past and at the often misquoted, or misattributed, quote of Voltaire which said:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

As I said, that was a slightly misattributed quote and is, in fact, an interpretation of Voltaire's views. The accurate quote from 1770 is:

I detest what you write, but I will give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

In this day and age we recognise that some things cross the line, which are unacceptable to have published, that can indeed incite hatred and can indeed vilify individuals or groups of people. We should rightly draw a line around those issues, but we must make sure that in drawing that line, in providing those protections for individuals against racism—as we should seek to do—we do not do so at the expense of genuine political debate, at the expense of genuine free speech, and at the expense of genuine artistic freedom in this country.

These are matters that we should stand up for. When somebody says something that we, as leaders of Australia, find to be offensive we should speak out against it. We should, as leaders, take up the challenge, which Senator Singh highlighted, in relation to people who may not have the same power of voice and make sure that their voices are heard through this place and through the media, and that we take a strong stand against intolerance. Taking a strong stand against intolerance, setting the right example for the community and trying to drive a change in community attitudes does not necessarily mean that we must always outlaw an action. It does not necessarily mean that we must always provide recourse to the law to do so. Oftentimes we will achieve the cultural change that we seek. We will achieve the change in community attitudes through leadership, through better behaviour, through better arguments, and through a sound adoption of principles and principled arguments against those who may apply racist activities.

Much has been made in this debate about the word 'bigotry' and whether or not bigotry is acceptable. Just as laws are made of words, words have meanings and in law the meaning is exceptionally important. The Oxford Dictionary defines bigotry as:

Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines bigotry as:

A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same belief is wrong.

One would be forgiven for thinking, on occasion, that there is much bigotry because people in this place hold very strong opinions and often think that the opinions of others, which are equally strongly held, are emphatically wrong. I think most of us in this place are tolerant towards each other's beliefs and opinions, even if we disagree with them vehemently. But, of course, bigotry itself, though not an admirable trait, is not something that the current laws make illegal nor something that the proposed laws would make illegal, and nor should it be. People should be free to hold views that are different from one another, even where those views may seem to be unreasonable to many others in the community.

We should not allow this debate to be sidetracked by the misinterpretation of a word like 'bigotry' or by misunderstanding of what a word like that may mean. We should be clear that this debate is about that extreme level of unacceptable conduct, behaviour and language that we decide is appropriate to write laws about, to draw that line around and say, 'That is too far for the Australian community to accept and for the parliament of Australia to accept.' In doing so we must ensure that we balance that against the free speech objectives that we should, as a nation, seek to stand by.

As I emphasised at the outset, the government has released for consultation draft changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Those draft changes have what some in this debate should all be warmly welcoming. The changes have, for the first time, prescribed racial vilification as being inappropriate behaviour. The changes have singled that out as an activity that will never be acceptable in this country. We should welcome the fact that there will be, over the coming months, a proper debate about racial vilification, about how it is defined, about whether it is appropriately defined in current law or about whether it is appropriately defined in the proposed law. Of course, it is not defined at all in current law. It is not even mentioned in the current law. But it is mentioned and it is defined in the proposal that is being released for public commentary.

I hope that all members of the community with an interest in this topic do actively participate in this debate. I hope they do so by looking very precisely at the words in the proposed laws, at those laws themselves and at the effect they will have. I hope they do so under the guiding principle of ensuring that we are as tolerant a nation as possible—but with as much opportunity for free speech as possible. That is a line that will be drawn somewhere at the end of this debate. I hope we draw it successfully in a manner that meets those dual objectives and ensures we end up with a law that is more workable than the one we currently have has proven to be.