Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is significant that on the same day that we came together at the reception this morning in the Great Hall in this place to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta—the 'great charter'—we are here today to discuss and to recognise the Racial Discrimination Act 40 years on. I would like to associate myself with many of the comments made by Senator Wong in opening this debate. One of the absolutely fundamental pillars of the Magna Carta which has survived through the 800 years to today is the fact that—then—no man; I will say, no person, is above the law. The Racial Discrimination Act is a most interesting piece of legislation, which draws attention to that precept of Magna Carta from so many years ago.

It was on 13 February 1975 that the then attorney-general in the Whitlam government, the late Kep Enderby, introduced the Racial Discrimination Bill to the House of Representatives. It was passed in June 1975, received its royal assent on 11 June that year, and came into force on 31 October—so it is appropriate that we are recognising this on 15 June, the first sitting day following the fortieth anniversary of its assent on 11 June 1975. Acting Deputy President, what does the act prescribe against? It is against the law to discriminate in areas including employment, and when seeking employment—and we heard an example given by Senator Wong of the Sri Lankan gentleman. It is against the law to discriminate, for example, in land, housing or accommodation, when buying or renting. It is against the law to discriminate in the provision of goods and services when buying an article or a service, applying for credit, or using banking services; when seeking assistance from government departments, from legal services or from doctors in hospitals; or when attending recreational or catering facilities such as restaurants, hotels or entertainment venues. The act prohibits discrimination in access to places and facilities for use by the public—parks, libraries, government offices, et cetera—and I want to come back to that in the context of our country contrasting with another. In advertising for a job, stating that people from certain ethnic groups cannot apply for a job or join a trade union, and certain other offensive behaviour, will be found to be discriminatory, if it is likely to 'offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate'. That is an area that has been the subject of debate in this place and no doubt will go on to be further debated in the future.

It is interesting that the act does require certain behaviours by people. But the way that it has been framed in the first instance is not about punishing racism but about protecting people against prejudice—that is, that conciliation rather than coercion be the overriding principle. It is also interesting that, in the 40 years that the act has been in operation, and with more than 6,000 complaints having been resolved, as of last year only three per cent were required to be finalised in the Human Rights Commission. As we all know—and as was alluded to by the previous speaker—in the time that has elapsed since 1975, the states and territories around this country have themselves enacted anti-discrimination legislation. Here in the Commonwealth, we have extended the legislative framework to include sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and discrimination based on age—all of which are critically important.

I mention Australia's situation with regard to discrimination and I contrast it with that of my experience residing in the United States of America, where discrimination across state boundaries and between different states in the United States is there for everyone to see. I particularly refer to African Americans. My experience teaching at the University of California was that African Americans were evident in the university system as undergraduates, as graduate students and as academics, who would certainly have been housed in the same housing with equivalent levels of wealth and with equivalent levels of access to society—and then I drove from California to Lexington, Kentucky, where I had the opportunity as an academic visiting that great university for three months, and I saw the absolutely radical difference in the approach of the wider community to African Americans in that location, and I saw also that African Americans themselves in their own attitudes were absolutely profound in their difference. Then we look at Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and—for those people who have visited that city and have become aware of the problems that have occurred as a result of discrimination, I can only say this: in what we have observed in Australia in contrast to the United States, how different has been the story. I would like to draw on the comments of our Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, when he was marking the anniversary on 19 February this year—and he is speaking here of those who put together the Racial Discrimination Act in the first place. He said:

Its authors, advocates and early administrators foresaw its critical role in guiding a maturing nation. They were among the pioneers of Australian human rights law for whom we can be forever grateful for their unapologetic insistence on the formal recognition of dignity, respect, equality and freedom as fundamental human liberties.

He went on to make the point that this is not a static process. It is an emerging and evolving process. He makes the point that those with responsibility in this area must have the ability to intelligently read and respond to changes in Australian society and to the attitudes of those of us who make up Australian society.

In the Governor-General's presentation that day, he referred to the statement of Martin Luther King:

… it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated … the law may not change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.

I think it is a fantastic circumstance that in this country we do have legislation which, of course, commits us to freedom, which enables us to enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the other traditional rights and liberties that we have all come to expect. In this country we want to reserve the right to speak our mind. But of course, at the same time, we must beware of our responsibilities. There is no place for racism among any in the Australian community. We recognise in this country that to enjoy all of our rights and freedoms people must be able to do so free from discrimination, and that our policies are designed to secure these objectives.

In the few minutes left, I want to draw the attention of the chamber to a term that we use very widely, and that is the term 'bigot'. Indeed, I wonder whether all of us who use it and throw it around have an understanding of the definition of a bigot. It is simply a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion; a person whose intolerance is devoted towards the opinions and prejudices of somebody else. I make that point because, if you were to take some of the robust discussion and the differences across this chamber at different times, a person looking in from the outside might accuse us of being guilty of the same.