Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the opposition motion to suspend standing orders in order to make sure that we have time to consider the government's amendments to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Let us go back a step here. Let us consider the time line. In 2014 the Prime Minister redefined what the phrase 'no surprises and no excuses' meant. That was the PM who gave us knighthoods. He then set out plans to make it easier for people to attack others on the basis of their race. We thought that was just a little hiccup. We thought, 'If this is an idea that's so bad that Tony Abbott rejects it, surely it's gone for good.' But this is like some bad zombie movie. It just keeps coming back and back and back.

We have the Attorney-General here, who said that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights needed to inquire into restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia. That is a fair call. It is always good to examine freedom of speech. It is a fundamental tenet of any liberal society. But then the Attorney-General decided to direct the committee to inquire only into the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, not into real restrictions on freedom of speech. Think about the Border Force Act, for example, which says to a doctor or a nurse or a health professional, 'We'll make a criminal out of you if you stand up and say that you've witnessed abuse in offshore detention facilities,' or indeed the ASIO Act or the vast pieces of anti-terrorism legislation, which make it almost impossible for journalists to report on abuses that go on right across Australia's network of asylum seeker detention centres.

We heard in the committee inquiry process that members of the Indigenous community were denied a hearing. So much for freedom of speech! It is really telling that the parliamentary joint committee looking at this issue, which was dominated by members of the coalition, could not agree on what changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act were necessary or justified.

Now out of that process, where there is clearly internal division, we see a bill rushed through basically so the Prime Minister can give the far Right of his party another victory. This is all about the internal politics. Senator Wong was absolutely right. This is all about the internal politics within the coalition. This is about a government that is now governing for itself and not for the community. Outside of its little echo chamber this is not an issue. Barnaby Joyce belled the cat. It is not often I agree with Barnaby Joyce, but he belled the cat. This is not a conversation that is happening around kitchen tables in Australian communities.

Now we have some amendments that were cobbled together at the last minute. God knows what they are. We have not seen them. You want to rush this legislation through the parliament and we have not even seen the amendments that you are proposing. Surely good process would mean that when we come into this place we are all presented with the amendments to this 'critical piece of government legislation'—in your words. The Attorney-General said that we have had weeks, months and, indeed, years of ventilating this topic. Why on earth are the amendments not even ready for us to look at right now as we go into debating this legislation?

We hear time and again the old platitudes about freedom of speech, but we do not hear about freedom of speech not being freedom of consequence. These platitudes are mentioned by the coalition. Freedom of speech is a critically important issue in a liberal democracy, but what about freedom of consequence? To say that the community support for retaining the current wording of section 18C is overwhelming is an understatement. When there is so much pressure from the community pushing you in the opposite direction you have to ask yourself: why is the government going so hard on this issue? It is very clear that there is the mother of all fights within the coalition right now.

The fundamental issue for me is this. Time and time again this government has been asked: just what is it that this government would like to say, or have other people say, that they cannot say now? What is it that this small group of mostly privileged white men want to say that is racially offensive or insulting which is not justifiable, reasonably or in good faith, and about which they claim has no overriding public interest? What is it? (Time expired)