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

I also rise this morning to speak on the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2014, brought to this Senate by Senator Day, which I have chosen to co-sponsor. I do not think my decision to co-sponsor this bill will come as a surprise to those in this place or to those outside it who have closely followed the debate of reform of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who have spoken or those who have yet to speak. A serious issue like this requires a serious and sincere debate.

As I noted in my contribution to an urgency motion in this debate just some weeks ago, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the government's proposals to reform the law in this area. As can sometimes occur, unexpected developments in the international arena meant the priorities of the government had to change, and I accept that. However, an independent senator has now brought a bill to the parliament that presents an opportunity to achieve reform that I believe is important in underpinning and protecting one of our most cherished rights in Australia: the right of all of us to the freedom of speech. That is, as will be well known to us, a founding principle of our democracy. To put it simply, I do not believe that the most effective way to uphold your values is to loosen your principles. I do not believe you do not uphold your values by loosening your principles.

The right to live in freedom, to speak freely and to treat with respect and dignity those who may hold different views from ourselves is the key difference between ourselves and those who would wish to do us harm. As the Prime Minister has noted, those who now pose a security threat to Australia do not hate us because of anything we have done; they hate us because of what we are and who we are: a stable, a mature and a free democratic society that not merely tolerates but celebrates diversity in all its forms—racial, religious, political, sexual, cultural. This has long been the case. Our record is not perfect but no nation's is. But Australia's reputation as one of the world's freest and most tolerant societies goes back many decades, certainly before 1995.

Tolerance in Australia did not simply materialise with the advent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Equally, it will not suddenly disappear if the words 'insult' and 'offend' are removed, which is what this bill seeks to do. I was bemused last week, when I agreed to co-sponsor this bill, to be described by Labor's spokesman as a radical senator. I have been called many things but that is a first. This is not a radical proposal. It is actually a minimalist proposal which highlights a simple point. In the end, our core philosophical difference in this place relates to the role of government. Many of those opposite believe that the government and legislation and regulation can and should cure all society's ills.

The simple fact is there are limits to what legislation can achieve. You cannot legislate to make people believe something or think a certain way, and that is certainly not the role of this parliament. That is the problem with section 18C as it currently exists. It criminalises the holding of an opinion and that is wrong. I may not like your opinion, but the idea that you can be taken to court and charged and fined for holding it is antithetical to that principle of freedom on which this nation and its core values are based.

I noted some comment last week in the media that retaining section 18C might be a way to combat hate preachers. Again, with respect, I do not find that argument especially compelling. If someone is so irrational and so filled with prejudice and hatred that they engage in the sort of preaching that urges the followers of a religion, a political party or some other organisation to physically attack or degrade those of a different view, I am not sure why anyone would think that two words in a piece of legislation are going to stop them. Irrational people—and that is what hate preachers are—do not sit down and think through the legal implications of their actions. It is much like those opposed to reform of section 18C arguing that change will lead to a torrent of racist abuse in our streets. Again, the thug who physically assaults someone because of their religious beliefs or launches into a racist rant generally will not be the type to pause and think, 'I better not do this because section 18C makes it illegal to offend and assault someone.' Those people are irrational and by definition are not capable of that logical thought process.

The ugly Cronulla riots in 2005 are often cited by supporters of section 18C as the sort of behaviour they are keen to stamp out but, as I have noted before, the Cronulla riots occurred 10 years after section 18C came into being. Section 18C manifestly did nothing to prevent those rights and those charged as a result of those riots were charged with criminal offences under different statutes, as they should have been.

The biggest problem with section 18C at present is it does not do anything to combat racism; it merely serves to hide it. Hiding the problem is not good enough. Our job in this parliament is not to create a better appearance but to create a better Australia. I want racists, bigots and, dare I say, homophobes to air their ugly prejudicial views so that they can be shown for what they are. We can only defeat racism and prejudices through argument and a clear demonstration that the facts do not support the bigots. If we shut down discussion, if we use legislation to declare certain subjects somehow off limits, then we have not defeated the problem; we have merely hidden the problem. Pushed into the darkness, the ugliness will simply continue to fester.

I was also struck by the words of Senator Bullock, a Labor senator, who said in his first speech in this place:

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.

That is a crucial point. A free and mature democracy does not have to accord all views equal weight in public discourse but it does need to permit people the right to express them. President Obama, who I suspect knows a good deal more than many of us in this place about what it is like to be attacked on the basis of race, made his view very clear. He said:

When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don't really have to do anything—you just let them talk.

In preparing my contribution for this morning I looked at Hansard from the mid-1990s when the Keating government's racial hatred legislation was being debated. In the course of perusing that material I came across this contribution:

… under this bill all that is necessary to create a civil offence is for someone to feel offended, insulted or humiliated. In other words, all that is necessary to create a civil offence … for someone to have hurt feelings.

It continues:

… the best argument against bad taste is not to make it illegal. What we need to combat racism is argument, not censorship; we need exposure, not suppression.

I would have applauded those comments in November 1994 as much as I do today. I thank the member for Warringah, the now Prime Minister, for making them.

As I have noted in some earlier contributions to Senate debates on this subject, tone is very important. We can disagree but we should do so respectfully. So it has been somewhat surprising that all the hectoring, finger-pointing, misrepresentation and name-calling in this debate has come from those who believe they are paragons of tolerance and virtue in our community, even in our parliament. During question time in the other place yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that I and others who support this bill are wanting to give the green light to racist, hate speech.

Let me make this plain, in terms even the Leader of the Opposition should be able to understand, I will not be lectured on racism and xenophobia by this man, I will not. I will not be lectured to about racism and xenophobia by a man who less than one month ago stood before a crowd of unionists on a flat-bed truck in Adelaide and gave the most disgraceful, racist and xenophobic speech any Australian political leader has given in decades. His speech that day was so appalling and so embarrassing that, at first, his own office refused to transcribe or distribute it. It was so disgraceful that one longtime Labor staffer described it as 'an inexcusable performance that stank with racist rhetoric'. The claims of those opposite to be guardians of racial tolerance in Australia might ring a little truer if a single one of them had taken their leader to task over his disgusting contribution. Unsurprisingly, none of them have.

I said at the beginning of this debate that I fully accept that developments in relation to national security required the government to reprioritise its own plans to reform section 18C. Nonetheless, this Senate is now being presented with a bill that will enhance the right of all Australians, no matter what their racial or religious background is, to freedom of speech. As I have just shown, the view that the best way to combat offensive view is to expose rather than suppress is one that transcends the usual party political boundaries. I encourage, with all of my heart and with the greatest of sincerity, senators to demonstrate their confidence in the fundamental decency and intelligence of our fellow Australians by supporting this bill. I also seek leave to continue my remarks.