David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the bill to remove 'insult' and 'offend' from section 18C of the Radical Discrimination Act. Mr Abbott says we need to adjust the delicate balance between freedom and security. Let me give him a tip. When you make decisions that authoritarians such as jihadists would approve of, like preventing people from saying what they think, when you threaten to haul journalists before courts and into jail and when you introduce provisions that give your security organisations the power to snoop on your own people, you have got the balance wrong. In fact, whenever you throw away the freedoms others have fought and died for, you have got the balance wrong. Mr Shorten says this is not the time to be removing the government censorship that is 18C on account of maintaining national unity. Sorry, Mr Shorten, but free speech does not have a timetable. Either you believe that we are entitled to say what we think or you don't. Either you believe this is a free country or you don't. Either you get the first line of the national anthem or you don't. In times of trouble true leaders speak for a nation about what they stand for, not which freedoms they have decided to give away.

I fear that Mr Abbott and Mr Shorten are not true leaders. When they talk about freedom there is always a 'but' to be found nearby. They believe in freedom but not if someone might have their feelings hurt. They believe in freedom but not all the time. They believe in freedom but will vote the same way that barbarians would vote. A lot of people, I suspect, are sick of hearing about democracy's 'but'. Those, like Mr Shorten, who believe we need to keep 18C for the sake of national unity do not seem to understand that democracies were never meant to be places of unity. That is a feature of fascist and communist regimes and, dare I say it, Islamist regimes.

The difference that characterises a democracy is its greatest strength, because it means that propositions are put to the test of public deliberation. People who make national unity arguments in a democracy probably do not understand democracy at all. Unfortunately, when it comes to section 18C, opinions are protected from public deliberation, in part because people are considered too 'weak' or 'vulnerable' and somehow incapable of bearing too much reality. Of all the people in the world, surely Australians are not so fragile or so gullible.

Questions of Aboriginality and Australian identity are matters of great public importance. They should be debated on the basis of evidence. Likewise, the Palestinian question is a matter that also should be debated and assessed on its merits. The Andrew Bolt and Mike Carlton controversies illustrate the silliness of this uncommonly silly law. I have no time for racism and other types of vilification, but we cannot have a situation where important matters are closed off from debate because of the potential for someone to claim that they have hurt feelings. Both Bolt and Carlton may have made some errors, but the remedy for errors of fact is a correction, an apology or even defamation proceedings. Section 18C gives certain people an extra remedy based on an arbitrary characteristic, which is a departure from the rule of law. In short, it is not a bad time to repeal 18C in the name of national unity; rather it is a good time to repeal section 18C in the name of national diversity.

When the government first suggested changes to the Racial Discrimination Act much was made of the connection between offence and insult—words I wish to see removed from the act—and subsequent racial violence. But while vilification might incite violence, there is no evidence that to offend or insult someone is to incite violence against that person. Indeed what evidence we have shows the opposite effect, because words often serve to replace violence.

As the law currently stands, instead of issues being debated and ideas criticised, toxic attitudes are driven underground or through the wires of the internet. This implicitly justifies handing over increased powers to Australia's security agencies so that the speakers of various nasty words can be watched over by the powers that be.

If people were free to speak, there would be less need for such surveillance. We would all know which imams think young Australian Muslims should fight in Iraq and Syria and we would also identify those who believe all Muslims to be terrorists.

Racial incitement and racial vilification are crimes, because it is possible for a reasonable person to identify them and for evidence of their effects to prevail in court. Offence and insult, by contrast, should not attract even a civil remedy because their effects are subjective, capable only of assessment by the person who chooses to take exception to them.

Last week there were repeated calls for Tony Abbott to pull his dissenting senators into line on section 18C. This strikes me as contradictory for the simple reason that many of those now making calls for party discipline will, when I introduce my marriage equality bill, demand that Tony Abbott grant a conscience vote.

I commend to my fellow senators Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol. In it Burke points out that a political representative owes his party and constituents not only his industry but also his independent judgement. People are elected to this place on the understanding that they have their own minds. It is not possible in my view to engage your conscience selectively. You are the usual mind or you do not. Senators and members, to paraphrase Bourke, ought to be faithful friends and devoted servants of their parties and constituents but not flatterers.

With this bill, senators get a chance to not just vote on their position on government censorship but also reveal a bit about themselves. Some of you, I know, are passionate supporters of freedom of speech and will be voting to repeal 18C. I congratulate Senator Day for introducing the bill and I congratulate those who will show the courage of their convictions by crossing the floor.

Then we have those who oppose the bill, because they disagree with it. At least you have the courage of convictions, but under what authority can you constrain freedom of speech of others while being protected by parliamentary privilege? Why is it okay for you to enjoy freedom of speech but not for other Australians? Do you accept this privilege because you are a senator and your constituents are not; or do you think your constituents are too fragile or stupid to manage a debate amongst themselves? When you prevent someone from expressing their thoughts, you are, in fact, insulting them.

And then there are those who support Senator Day's bill but are voting against it anyway for the sake of expediency or some misguided belief in party loyalty. I would remind you that voting against this bill will not be an act of party loyalty but an act of betrayal on your electors.

I commend the bill to the Senate. I put it to you that if you are one of those people who will vote this down, that maybe you do not believe in anything much at all. I commend the bill to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.