Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the release of the exposure draft of the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by the Attorney-General. All week we have had this howling chorus of political correctness from this morally vain party sitting opposite me—all week without stop.

I am not a good lawyer, and do not claim to be, but I do know this: there is no right at all not to be offended. I am offended by many things in this place—in fact I am offended all the time—but I do not want to ban or criminalise those things. I am offended by the fact that the party opposite, the opposition, spent the money of our children and of our grandchildren. It was morally culpable. They did it and I am offended by it, but I do not want to ban it. I loathe the fact that they have actually brought in a debt that has become systemic, that recurrent expenditure now is well and truly over government receipts. They did that and it is morally reprehensible. They are stealing money from the next generation, and that is morally reprehensible, but I do not want to ban it.

There is also no right not to have one's feelings hurt. You know, Deputy President, that I am very sensitive! I do not like to have my feelings hurt. But there is no right not to have them hurt. The Left's first instinct is always to ban things. They do not believe in a free market economy. That also do not believe in the free market of ideas.

We do, even if we do not like some of those ideas. Do you know why?—because we believe it is better to ventilate, argue and debate than to attempt to subdue and hide. That has always been the Liberal way. If you do not believe me let me quote the Indigenous leader Dr Sue Gordon on the front page of The Australian, today. I am sure you read it, Deputy President. The article said:

Dr Gordon said the repression of free speech was damaging to race relations and she agreed with Attorney-General George Brandis that people had the right to be bigots. "I think sometimes there is too much emotion in this topic and people need to just look at it calmly," she said.

"I agree with what Brandis said. People do have a right in this country, you can't suppress everything."

That is the point that Dr Gordon was making. That is the point that the Attorney-General has been making all week. It is better to ventilate, argue and debate than to repress. It might be tough and uncomfortable. Democracy and pluralism is tough and uncomfortable, by nature.

There is a lot of political correctness going around at the moment. You may notice that it is fine to question the motives of Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General—a middle aged white man. You are always allowed to question his motives, but you are definitely not able to question the motives of anyone who identifies as an Australian Aboriginal or Indigenous person. That you cannot do. That is the mark of political correctness from those opposite.

Mr Dillon, who also identifies as being Aboriginal, was also quoted in that article on the front page of The Australian. The article went on:

"Political correctness, with regard to people who identify as Aboriginal Australians, has reached the ridiculous stage where one can be accused of being racist simply by questioning the motives of some people who identify as being Aboriginal," Mr Dillon says.

To question the motives of someone who is Indigenous or of a certain ethnicity is somehow outrageous and bigoted! It cannot be done, but it is okay to question or suborn the motives of someone who is white, middle-aged, male and happens to be the Attorney-General.

We have heard all week that somehow there is a lack of propriety or good faith on behalf of the Attorney-General. That is what is outrageous about this debate—it has become personal rather than a matter of principle. So let us hope that between now and when the parliament resumes in a few weeks time calmness and rational debate takes over. There is one certainty, and it is this: the coalition will never reject, or even compromise, the idea of freedom of speech, except in very few cases. We will not change. Questioning motives is not the way to go about this debate. (Time expired)