Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Before we pass any law in this place, we should ask ourselves a pretty basic question. I am sure my colleagues on the coalition side will be pleased to hear me put this proposition. The question is: what is the problem we are trying to solve? Let us not waste the parliament's time. Let us not pass more legislation—which is what is being proposed here—if we are not solving a serious problem.

I do not remember being bombarded with lots of correspondence about the need to get rid of section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act. I do not recall, over the past 20 years, people protesting in the street because they felt their freedom of speech was being impinged upon. I do not remember seeing protests about this issue. Most people understand that it is not appropriate to hurl racist insults at people and that, if they do, there are consequences.

The only clamour for a change to this law is coming straight out of Holt Street, straight out of News Corp, whose version of free speech is, 'Anything I say is okay and we will be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in this area.' And News Corp's poster child is that right-wing wacko Andrew Bolt. That is where the clamour is coming from to change these laws.

We need to understand what these laws actually do. I listened to an esteemed presenter on the ABC this morning implying that people who express an extreme bigoted opinion should be sent to jail. That cannot occur under these laws. It is not a criminal offence to express such an opinion. I think people do not understand how this legislation actually works. If you use racist, hateful language that has an impact on another individual, they have the right to seek mediation. That is a good thing. Most of these cases are settled through mediation and someone learns a valuable lesson about the impact of hate speech on other people. Occasionally, as in the Bolt case, it can end up in court. What does the court do in those situations? They might order an apology, which is what happened in the Bolt case. He was issued with a court order to apologise, he was forced to retract his article and he was ordered not to publish it elsewhere. That is a small price to pay when you consider the impact of this behaviour on other people.

All of us in this place support freedom of speech. But what about the freedom of a young Muslim woman on a tram—being free to travel without having people hurl racist insults at her? What about the right of an Aboriginal man to be served at a venue without having racist insults hurled at him? What about the freedom of a young Asian boy in the classroom to get about his business without being the subject of racist taunts? That is what this legislation is about—nothing more, nothing less.

Senator Brandis talks about the 'chill effect' as though there are teams of writers and lawyers poring over work that cannot be published because—God forbid—there might be something in it that might be racist towards others. He says that without being able to cite any evidence of it occurring. If these laws give journalists pause to think that the impact of what they are writing may in fact cause harm to others, that is a good thing. If they are forced to apologise because they do cause harm to others, that is a good thing.

Far from having a chilling effect, this action by the government will have a heating effect. It will flush out the racists and the bigots and give them, to use the Prime Minister's words, the 'green light' to use their hate speech against others. There has been a lot of talk about green lights, amber lights and red lights, but this government is putting this sign up in flashing lights—'Racists and bigots, you are welcome in Australia'. Well, you are not. These laws exist because we as a government have a role in protecting people from hateful speech.