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

This issue has been characterised as a debate between freedom of speech on one hand and the heavy hand of regulation and government censorship on the other. We hear a lot about freedom in this place. We hear constant references to 'the nanny state'. We hear about the curtailment of individual liberties and freedoms. But it has become increasingly clear to me over time that the debate we have about freedom is often couched in very narrow terms. In fact, what we have just heard from the coalition is a very narrow interpretation of freedom, and indeed one that is not shared by the Australian community. This is not just about freedom of speech. It is about the freedom of a young Muslim family to travel on a train without being racially vilified. It is about the freedom of an Aboriginal boy to play football without being insulted on the grounds of race. Freedom is much, much broader than simply being able to express your opinion regardless of the circumstances. It is about freedom to flourish—to grow.

The government does not seem to be concerned about the freedom of individuals who do not want the communication they have with their friends, family, businesses and so on to be under surveillance by the government. The freedom for two people of the same sex to have their love recognised through marriage is an important freedom but one that is ignored. Indeed, what about the freedom of a person in tremendous suffering who wants to be able to choose the way in which they end their life? That is a freedom that does not seem to be important to this government. It appears that freedom is important only when it serves a political agenda. If you have made a promise to your mates at News Corp that you are going to try to kill section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, then freedom is paramount.

The good news here is that the Australian community has made their views very, very clear. In some sense, I welcome the debate we have had. We have seen a response where people have marched, we have seen town hall meetings, we have seen councils right across the country express their views on these changes and on how they see people's freedoms that need to be protected. What it has really done for me is consolidated the view that Australians have a sophisticated view of what freedom is and that sometimes, in order to be able to protect freedom, we need to take collective action. Governments need to pass laws because we recognise that through that collective action we enable individuals to flourish and to grow. That is what freedom is.

The message to the government here is very loud. It has come through very clearly: you have to get out of the echo chamber you are currently in. It is convenient for you at the moment to be in an environment where you are listening to your mates at News Corp or you are listening to the big end of town, where you are getting a very narrow interpretation of what the Australian community believes and wants. And it is why you are in the trouble you are in with your budget at the moment. You have to get out into the community, you have to connect with people, and you have to understand that freedom is a much broader, much more generous concept and one that the Australian community has very clearly expressed a view on. They do not want to be in an environment where their kids are going to be subject to racist taunts, to be vilified on the grounds of the countries of their origin, because they know that is a great threat to their kids' freedom to grow, to flourish and to develop. That is what this debate has done. It has consolidated that very clear view that government action collectively—when there is a consensus, as there is around section 18C of the racial vilification legislation—is the best protection against intrusions on freedom.