Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

My point exactly!

I ask, what is 'the quaint bigotry of a softly spoken vicar' anyway? I spent a number of years working on a building site. I have been called a lot of things, but never a bigot—nor even 'quaint'. I am not softly spoken and am not and have never been a vicar. Where do these people get their ideas? But it is a free country; Max Opray can write what he likes as far as I am concerned. That is what people of conscience and supporters of free speech face—crude caricaturing of supporters of so-called, in their view, 'hate speech'.

Then there is the case of Mr Troy Newman. Revoking visas has been the preference of tough-on-law-and-order campaigners in government or, in other cases, those wanting to prevent the promotion of domestic violence or abuse of women by preventing rap artists coming to our country. Revoking visas has now become the weapon of choice of the same people who oppose so-called 'hate speech'.

Last week we learned of the intended arrival of Mr Newman from the United States. He shared a video on his Facebook page of his interception by the US authorities, refusing permission for him to travel on a domestic flight because the connecting flight was to Australia, and Australian authorities had informed their US counterparts that Mr Newman's visa had been revoked. Why? Because the government was lobbied by 'anti-life advocates'—as the subeditor of The Sydney Morning Herald would call them—to revoke the visa of Mr Newman, who was coming to address pro-life rallies. Writing for The Geelong Advertiser, a Peter Moore—who is opposed to Mr Newman's views—said:

I would have thought that Australia was sufficiently mature to accept someone like Troy Newman, or do people like Terri Butler consider that the community is too fragile to listen to others' views?

Now some are urging the Australian government to reject the visa of Dutch politician Geert Wilders. To my knowledge, neither Mr Newman nor Mr Wilders have what the Migration Act refers to as 'a substantial criminal record'.

The politically correct Newman and Wilders situations beggar belief when you consider it was the same government—under new management, we might concede—that campaigned strongly against these very kinds of infringements of free speech. Perhaps there were very good reasons for the steps taken. There are opportunities to get the principle and the narrative of free speech right: support Archbishop Porteous; work with Mr Newman and Mr Wilders on what they plan to do and what they plan to say; and support my sensible and moderate reform to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The government promised to repeal the section; I am only proposing the removal of the words 'offend' and 'insult'. What is offensive or insulting about that?