Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the honour to speak to this particular motion, even though I disagree with it. At the outset I think that—and I think this is a test for future speakers—if the issue is as important to us as many think it is, irrespective of the various positions we come to, then it should be a debate about the issue and we should refrain from the temptation to weave into it a whole range of other issues that are just distractions.

I would have liked to have seen the government maintain its commitment to pursuing a public discussion around the merits of amending section 18C. That was not to be, but I think it demonstrates two things. The first is that, even though my opinion did not take hold or have sway, the government did listen to the opinions of others. I think, in the first instance, that deserves proper consideration. The second is that we should understand more accurately the word 'complication' in its proper context. If the government made a decision that national security interests were best advanced in the absence of other political debates then—even though I might disagree with it, with the limited knowledge that I might have about our national security threats at present—I accept that. The challenge in government is that sometimes you cannot do all the things you want to do at the same time. Sometimes some policies and issues have to take precedence over others.

We should be calm about the decision that was taken. It does not mean that the debate will go away; it does mean that perhaps people might frame the debate differently in the future. All I can talk about is the experience I had over the last few months speaking about this particular issue to a variety of groups across the community. I was surprised by the level and depth of conviction with which people who had a different view to me prosecuted that view. I thank those people who came to my office here in Canberra, in Perth and across Western Australia to express their point of view. In the debate, important elements of the government's compromise were not well understood. For example, the introduction of a Commonwealth racial vilification mechanism was not understood. I think the mechanism would have been a powerful and positive contribution to our laws, in the same way that I think the removal of some other elements of section 18C would also have been a positive development on our nation's pathway to greater freedom of speech and expression. That was not to be. It does not mean that the debate has ended. It does not mean that we cannot continue to discuss the merits or otherwise of this particular law in the context of our changing community.

I am an Australian optimist. I am confident that Australians can be the best that they can be. It is good to see Senator Peris here. I remember an exchange we had during a take note of answers debate some months ago. Senator Peris talked personally about her experience, and I stood up in this place and I said, 'I don't understand. I don't have the experience that Senator Peris has. I have had my own experiences. I have had my own challenges. But I want us to be the best that we can be.' Bringing unfortunate thoughts and ill-considered statements out of the darkness into the community provides a much better outcome over the longer term. But that was not to be. That is where we are up to. I think it is important that the community continue to debate the merits or otherwise of reform to section 18C. As I said, I am an Australian optimist. I think Australians can be the best they can be. I think when ill-considered, hurtful thoughts are brought out into the open, Australians respond well by challenging those ideas and thoughts.

Some senators may be familiar with the case of Nilson Dos Santos which came to prominence just last week. Mr Dos Santos, a Brazilian born gentleman seeking employment as a barista in Sydney, was refused a job at the Forbes and Burton Cafe in Darlinghurst in Sydney's inner east. According to media reports, Mr Dos Santos was refused a job by the cafe owner, Mr Stephen Hu. Apparently the reason given to Mr Dos Santos was that the cafe's customers 'would not want coffee made by black people.' It was most interesting that when Mr Hu was contacted by the media to investigate the claim, he did not deny making the remark. Unbelievably, he tried to justify it, at least initially going on to claim:

… I think the clients here want local people, not African people.

He also told one media outlet:

… I think the coffee culture is more about white people.

Adding a further twist to this to my mind bizarre and unacceptable story, Mr Hu is himself an immigrant to Australia, so his claim is as illogical as it is offensive. But that is not the issue. Once the case was reported, the public reaction was swift and decisive. There was a case of out-and-out racism pure and simple. It is a great pity that this kind of thing is still happening in contemporary Australia, but nonetheless it has happened and I do not doubt that it will happen again. The incident represents the very worst elements in our society, however what happened next represents the very best and goes to my point about the need for ideas and commentary that we find ill-considered and offensive to be better put in light than kept in the darkness.

Media reports today indicate that the Forbes and Burton cafe in Darlinghurst is now closed—not open, not vibrant; it is now closed. Whether that is temporary or permanent is yet to emerge, but the appalling racial remarks of the business owner would appear to have cost him his business. I think that is an important point. The cafe doors are closed today, not because the government closed them—there are no police in the doorway; there was no ministerial directive; there was no court order. The Forbes and Burton cafe is closed this afternoon because when its customers—Australians—heard what had happened to Mr Dos Santos, they boycotted the cafe. When they heard about it, Australians made a judgement as to whether these things were acceptable or not—and changed their behaviour in a way that penalised the action. When previously loyal, local customers heard about what had happened, they voted with their feet.

This is what I have said is the right way in which to engage the public discussion that has taken place this year around section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section of the act is not needed, to my mind, because its continued presence on the statute books suggests that we in this place have little faith—have no faith—in the fundamental decency of our fellow Australians. I come to this discussion from a simple starting position, which is that Australians are fundamentally decent and possessed of tremendous common sense which, when called upon and when required, they use with great grace and dignity. Australians know racism when they see it or hear it. They know bigotry, or homophobia, or hatred. But, as I said previously, if I am in a room with a racist, or a homophobe, or a bigot, I want to know about it; I do not want it to be hidden from me. And I hope that I, and others, when confronted with that, will rise to the challenge to call it out—not to accept it, not to excuse it, not to politely ignore it, but to call it out. I want those racists, homophobes and bigots to air their views—so that their views can be exposed for the unenlightened, misguided, unthinking, hurtful objects that they are. The best way to move forward and the best way to have a prosperous free country is to trust Australians with their freedoms.

As we have seen in the case of Mr Dos Santos—who I understand has received more than 20 offers of employment in the past week—where racism and intolerance exist, the community can step up to the challenge. Those in our community can take action and censor the racists themselves—they can censor the racists with their own actions. Australians do not need the heavy hand of the state to tell them right from wrong. My problem with section 18C in its present form is that that is what it suggests they do. Part of living in a free and democratic society involves hearing things that we might disagree with, or that we might find offensive. For example, when I hear Labor MPs accuse the government of wanting to 'give the green light to racism'—which was the shadow Attorney-General's contribution to the earlier debate on section 18C—I was disappointed by that. I was offended by that. No government in this country would ever want to do that. And I challenge those people, both inside this place and outside it, who really think that the motivations of those people who support reform are because they are racist.

I hold some pretty fundamental disagreements with those opposite. But I do not ever for a moment believe that my opponents' views are evil. I just believe that, on many issues, they are wrong. And like me, over time they might change their views on issues—as I, no doubt, will change my view on issues. It is pleasing, however, that one of the new Labor voices in this place, Senator Bullock, shares views similar to mine and others. In his first speech to the Senate last night, Senator Bullock said the following:

The politically correct place tolerance on a pedestal among virtues but hold that it requires that all sincerely held views—provided that they are not politically incorrect—be held to be equally valid with respect to the holder of them. This is not tolerance but rather a flawed doctrine of moral equivalence. To be tolerant of your views I do not need to pretend that you are just as right as I am but rather to accept that you have a perfect right to hold a view I believe to be wrong, even if I find your view offensive.

Senator Bullock has hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. It is a pity that those of his colleagues who brought this motion appear not to have listened to his contribution. I disagree with Senator Bullock on a great many issues—although I was pleased to hear his reference to the constitutional monarchy in his maiden speech—but I also respect his right to hold his views—to hold them vigorously and to articulate them well; but nonetheless to hold them. And when I disagree with them, I will say so, and point out why he is wrong—and I expect others to say so, and point out why they think he might be wrong. That is the way this parliament is supposed to work, this is the way the parliament often works, and it is the way that our society is supposed to work. Section 18C was a great test for our parliament. For me—who has been in this place only a short while—it was an early demonstration of how, sometimes, very important and necessary debates can find themselves unfortunately hijacked by the politics of the day. But the section 18C debate is not going to go away. To lock ourselves into this idea that there is no better way to deal with these issues is to limit us as a parliament; to limit us as a community; and to limit Australian progress.

My great hope is that Australia will be free of scurrilous, unenlightened, misinformed comments—free not because people are scared to make those comments but free because we as a community actively challenge them. How many times have people in this place seen or heard something and, rather than stand up and say, 'Excuse me, I do not find that acceptable'—to challenge it in the light—have politely turned the other way or looked down? That is us failing ourselves; it is us failing our freedoms. We can do much better as a country. I do not think we need this type of legislation in its current form to guarantee that freedom. I do think that we can, instead, look beyond ourselves and have debates about these issues, knowing comfortably that Australians will, can and often do rise to the challenge of being a harmonious nation.

It is disappointing that the debate has gone. I accept the reasons for the debate having now passed us, but I have no doubt the debate will come back again in a different form. I do not doubt for a second that it might come back in a form in which it finds support because some of the rough edges of the original proposal have been cut off and that we can find agreement and progress with some common ground around some amendments that reflect the country we want to be but also provide some of those protections to those who feel a little more vulnerable, who are not yet convinced that we can be the best we can be.

I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill. I do not agree with the motion; I think we can do better. We should always be open to the idea of reform, and I suspect that in coming months in this chamber, this Senate—and I hope in this parliament—the Australian community will again have an opportunity to debate this issue in another form.