Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion this evening. I have listened to most of the speakers this afternoon, if not in here, then in my office. I can certainly say that it is fairly easy to support the first eight of the 12 words—that the Senate notes the Turnbull government's failure—which are the extent of this motion, and then we could insert a whole range of other words after that. But for the purposes of this debate this evening we are focusing on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

It is interesting to listen to some of the speakers who advocate the abolition of section 18C and of watering down the protection against racial vilification. I wonder how many of them have experienced racial discrimination at its core and understood the impact that racial vilification has on an individual and on individual communities across Australia. I wonder if they have, or if they have had contact with people who have. It is perhaps through that learned experience that you realise how important protections like section 18C are.

My understanding of the historical origin of section 18C is that it was founded back in the early nineties under the Keating government and had some links to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Before the Racial Discrimination Act was amended to include this section, there had been extensive reports on and consultations into the impact of racial vilification on various communities. This was not something that just appeared in legislation; it was a response to the lived experience of minority groups within this country—and it has served the test of time.

I listened to Senator McAllister ponder in her speech on where the anxiety about section 18C originates from. Why is it that in the last 2½ years this has become somewhat of an obsession for certain members and senators in this parliament when it has existed for more than 20 years? Section 18C sends a powerful message about the standards that we expect, that every Australian can be treated with respect and, at times, be offered protection under law. I have heard some of the concerns. I think Senator Smith brought up the fact that the people involved in those ugly Cronulla riots were not prosecuted under section 18C but, instead, under the Criminal Code. That is absolutely correct and that is as it should have been. But that does not mean that section 18C is not useful or serves no purpose.

We have laws, which are interrelated and serve a particular purpose, that align together when needed. In this instance, the Racial Discrimination Act sends a very clear message that has served Australians very well. It does offer protection. It does balance freedom of speech. If you look at it, the Racial Discrimination Act already contains very strong protection for freedom of speech. I do not think you will get any stronger defenders of freedom of speech than senators in this place. But we also acknowledge that, at times, people should be afforded protections for particular actions of others.

Section 18C renders conduct unlawful where it is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people on the basis of their race. I grew up with a brother who is of Papua New Guinean descent. He and I grew up together. He is one year younger than me. We went to school together as siblings. We spent a lot of time together. His lived experience of childhood in Australia was quite different to mine, even though we came from the same family. There are times that he has suffered because of his race and racial background and when he has been treated very differently to the sister he has grown up with all his life.

I saw, firsthand, the hurt and the pain that is caused when racism is suffered, and that has certainly influenced the way I think about section 18C. I have had firsthand experience in my family of a person who has a different racial background to mine, but who is my brother in every sense of the word, being treated very differently to me on the basis of his colour and race. He has grown up with laws, which send a very strong message, that that behaviour towards him is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. That, of course, does not stop that behaviour occurring, but it sends a very strong message that we as a country do not accept that people should be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by others on the basis of their race.

Other speakers tonight were saying that there are 14 others who are supporting getting rid of section 18C or the Bob Day bill. I would challenge that and say that there are plenty more in this place and in the other House that do not. Yes, we represent different communities and come from various backgrounds, but I do not think that it is fair to assume that just because there are 14 advocates for this approach that it means it is a good thing, by any measure. We will always have vigorous debates in this place, but, from the feedback I get from the community, which has very strong views about this and protecting section 18C, I think that that is the view of a minority.

Labor will not stand for the watering down of race-hate-speech protections, given they have served our country very well for more than 20 years. Regardless of whether these protections are opposed by the government or in private senators' legislation, these are protections that Labor will vigorously defend.

Debate interrupted.