Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Freedom of speech is one of the virtues that underpin the functioning of our society, a society which is the envy of the world. One of the greatest protections a minority and oppressed group could have is freedom of speech. As Robert Menzies enunciated in founding the Liberal Party, 'We believe in the great human freedoms'. And amongst them is to speak. Further, he reminded us that, by elevating the individual, we meet and defeat the terrible doctrine of the all-powerful state—a doctrine at once destructive, reactionary and negative. When government determines what we can and cannot say and has tribunals enforcing this stifling approach, we go down the destructive, the reactionary and the negative path against which Menzies warned.

It was not only Menzies. When this stifling, anti-free-speech legislation was first introduced back in 1995, it was not only I who warned about its potential consequences. Listen to this:

If this legislation is passed it will create a crime of words. This will take the legislation across a certain threshold into the realm of thought police—the most commonly voiced concern in the community and one which I share

This was spoken by former Greens Senator Christabel Chamarette. There you go: all those years ago, a former Greens senator could see how this legislation would stifle freedom of speech, and she and I shared our views. Today, I stand in this place again to indicate that, sadly, the history of this legislation has confirmed the concerns expressed by former Senator Chamarette and me all those years ago. As a result of this legislation we have a journalist commentator, a cartoonist and four students hauled before these 'thought police' because they allegedly insulted, offended or humiliated.

Indeed, back in 1995 the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties—hardly a right-wing stronghold—warned about this legislation in these terms:

… essentially the effect of that legislation will be to protect people from hurt feelings. The legislation is designed specifically and in terms to protect people from offence and insults. No other legislation or principle of law that we are aware of in this country has that effect. No other legislation or principal of the law that we are aware of seeks to protect people from hurt feelings. We say the Government has no role as the guardian of hurt feelings.

That is from the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties as expressed by one Mr Pearce.

So let's be clear: there may well be unattractive behaviours which we do not like but that government, quite rightly, does not seek to outlaw. Insulting or humiliating people should not be condoned. But you could not help but note that Senator McKim's speech was peppered with insult to the Attorney-General. Indeed, I read a letter to the editor the other day saying that no change should be made to section 18C 'by Turnbull's bunch of bigots' because it would allow insults. So the term 'bunch of bigots' was not designed to insult! Their lack of self-awareness and their lack of understanding of how they are more than happy to dish out an insult, but in a certain particular discrete area it is not allowed, according to their view of the world.

Strangely, what we have in this legislation is that the government says that you should not be allowed to 'insult, offended or humiliate' on only one ground: namely, race. If government says that one cannot encroach on individual sensitivities because of race, why not religion; the height of a person or, indeed, the shortness of a person; the overweightness of a person or the lack of it; the colour of hair; the lack of hair; skin complexion; whether somebody has freckles or not; one's financial position or lack of it; or a physical aid, such as glasses or hearing aids—the list, quite frankly, is, and can be, endless. Indeed, I saw a recent study of bullying at schools, and what was the top criterion? Was it race? No, it was not. Was it sexuality? No, it was not. It was, sadly, the issue of physical characteristics—whether somebody has buckteeth, whether they are overweight, whether they have red hair—and their social acceptance within the particular group. If you have a look at youth suicide, you will see that it is those factors, sadly, that overwhelmingly lead to that scourge that currently plagues our community.

For whatever bizarre reason of political correctness, government determined that we should be allowed to continue to insult, offend et cetera—and I accept this is unattractive behaviour but nevertheless should not be outlawed—just not on the basis of race. It is just as hurtful, just as insulting and just as humiliating to say insulting words to somebody because of what might be a physical disability or their religious belief, or because they are overweight, as opposed to their race. So the question that we have to ask in this place is: what is the role of government?

There is a threshold question here, and that is: should people be protected not about hurt feelings but to enable them to go about their normal day-to-day activities in society? I think we would all agree that that should be allowed and people should be protected. That is why we say: get rid of the words that deal with hurt feelings and deal with the issue of harassment. I must say, I am one of those people who question why we have a special provision that says you are not allowed to harass somebody because of race. My view is that you should not be allowed to harass people to stop them going about their normal day-to-day activities full stop, irrespective of whether the motivation is race, political belief, religious belief, or because you do not like the way the neighbour mows the lawn and so you harass them. We do have laws against harassment, we do have laws against intimidation, and that is the way it ought be.

Let's be quite clear that this legislation not only has government encroaching on our lives and policing us with tribunals—meting out, might I add, public humiliation along with penalties for saying the politically incorrect thing—but is a system that also punishes, as the four QUT students found out. After many years they were finally exonerated, but during that period they were publicly insulted, publicly humiliated and publicly offended by being labelled racists and being dragged through the papers. Oh, there was no problem with that, because our beloved Human Rights Commission was dealing with it! You know: the President of the Human Rights Commission who is going to support the Bob Brown Foundation on Friday at a fundraiser. That is why Senator Nick McKim likes Professor Triggs; that is why he quotes Professor Triggs with approval—because Professor Triggs is going down to Tasmania on Friday to do a fundraiser for the Bob Brown Foundation / the Greens party in Tasmania. But, coming back to the issue at stake, the QUT students were subjected to public ridicule, brought before the legal system and lumbered with a bill of tens of thousands of dollars to have their names exonerated, and also, might I add, they were publicly humiliated for all those years. I say unreservedly that our citizens deserve protection from such heavy handedness, from such ugliness—from the instruments of government.

Many within our community, for fear of the legal costs and for fear of being publicly humiliated and labelled racist, simply pay 'go away money' so that their names never appear in public. Thank goodness the QUT students took a stand. And I stand here with those QUT students, and others, who say that they should have been allowed to say and do what they did without the heavy, oppressive, stifling hand of government upon them to stop them. Do you know what their alleged great sin was? They called out racial segregation at their university and labelled it segregation. Oh, the thought police were into that big time! Those students were immediately pursued in circumstances where they should never have been pursued.

There are other aspects of this legislation that I will get into when I am able to continue this speech. There are machinery amendments to this legislation that are also vitally important to ensuring we have a proper system in place. When the Human Rights Commission and this legislation first started, 30 per cent of complaints were thrown out as being unmeritorious, as not being worthy. Now we have a situation, under the current regime, of only five per cent being thrown out. What you see is a make-work scheme for the Human Rights Commission.

In relation to Senator McKim's contribution, can I say very briefly that the facts of the case he referred to, the Kirstenfeldt case, would clearly fit into the category of harassment. Without any shadow of doubt, that would have been a case of harassment and not of hurt feelings, and that is something the Australian Greens and their mate on the Human Rights Commission will not say. As I have indicated, these are the people, from the left of Australian politics in particular, that spend their day insulting, offending and humiliating people for all sorts of reasons but then come into this place and say, 'Don't do as we do in the situation of race.' Well, ugly as some language may be from time to time, unattractive as it may be, government has no role in seeking to stifle people's speech, as the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties indicated, for the concept of hurt feelings.