Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Smith for his contribution. He is invariably worth listening to closely, I have found, in my relatively short time representing the state of Tasmania here in the Senate. However, Senator Smith, I found some inherent contradictions in some of the arguments you made. Firstly, you spent quite a bit of your contribution calling strongly for a review of, variously, 18C and freedom of speech statutes in this country. However, it is beholden on me to point out that you have actually signed on to change section 18C by removing the words 'offend' and 'insult'. So you do not have a position of wanting review—you have actually signed on to the change, Senator Smith. It is worth my pointing out that in my view, and with the greatest respect, inherent contradiction in your contribution.

The problem the proponents of change have more broadly is that there are a range of other far more grievous constraints on freedom of speech that never get a mention. Our defamation laws, which have extreme constraints, in effect, on freedom of speech in this country, never ever get a mention by those representatives of the Liberal Party and the IPA in this place, because of course they are used by politicians and big corporations in order to stifle freedom of speech. So they are very convenient, and it is conveniently ignored that our defamation laws are a massive constraint on freedom of speech in this country. I refer you also to section 42 of the Border Force Act, which is a massive constraint on freedom of speech for those people who work in the immigration detention centres in our country. If people are truly going to self-style as freedom of speech warriors in this place, or in public debate—I am not suggesting that you are, Senator Smith, but I am suggesting that others in this place have done that—then I want to hear from them objections to section 42 of the Border Force Act. I want to hear from them objections to the significant constraints on the freedom of speech created by our defamation laws. But, do you know what? I am not going to hold my breath, because I do not think those comments are coming because what is driving this debate around 18C is that people want Australians to be able to offend and insult other Australians based on race—based on race; that is the key. Section 18C is in the Racial Discrimination Act. If you want to remove the words 'offend' and 'insult' from the Racial Discrimination Act, logic follows that you want Australians to be able to offend and insult based on race. What reasonable person would want to offend another Australian based on their race? I do not think there is a reasonable justification for offending and insulting fellow Australians based on their race.

I spoke about section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act earlier today, but it is worth pointing out that, like defamation laws, like section 42 of the Border Force Act, section 18D never gets a mention in this argument by proponents of change. It is forgotten by proponents of change as often as most Australians, including me, forget the second verse of Advance Australia Fair. Section 18D seriously provides massive freedom of speech protections that effectively protect anything said or done in good faith in this country. It is a significant and broad protection.

I also want to point out in the very limited time left to me in this debate that there are many more ominous rights to the threats of ordinary Australians in section 18C. I am going to call people out here, and they are the right wing culture warriors in Australia —I am not referring to Senator Smith, but there are others in this place, including Senator Patterson and Senator Duniam, who is the new Senate for Tasmania—who will take every opportunity to crib their way through our statute books to make Australia a less safe place for people they do not agree with. I have seen this through my life. I say to Senator Paterson and his IPA—he is an agent of the IPA in his place, make no mistake about it—and to Senator Duniam and others that I will not lie down before them and let them crib their way any further than they are able to do. I will defend section 18C to my last breath in this place.

I want to point out to the chamber that threats like the growth in inequality in this place—the gap between the haves and the have-nots in Australia—is a significant challenge to the rights of Australians. Global warming and sea-level rise are significant challenges to the rights of Australians. The ever-expanding surveillance that is done in the national security—which all of those proponents of changes to section 18 C line up to support—is a significant challenge to the rights of everyday Australians. But we do not hear a peep from these people about those things. We simply hear that we need to change 18C so that people can be offensive and insulting on the basis of race in this country. Well, not on my watch!