James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have had the privilege of contributing to this debate a number of times in this chamber, so I will not go over too much old ground today. I will not go over the arguments about the importance of freedom of speech. I will not go over the evidence that the administration of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by the Human Rights Commission has been incredibly flawed. I will not go over the recent cases that show the harmful impact that this law has had on journalists, cartoonists and students.

There are two things I want to do today. The first is to respond to an argument made by Senator Siewert which has become a bit of a catchcry of those who are opposed to changes to 18C. They like to ask, 'What is it that you would like to say that you cannot say under this law but you would be able to say if the law changes?' It is a question they ask often. It is a question that they assert is not answered and has not been answered, but the only way they could have that view is if they have not been actually listening to those who have a different view in this debate, if they have not been following the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue and if they have not been following the debate closely, because this question has been answered, and I am happy to answer it today.

It is a question that Senator McKim asked at the human rights committee hearings, which we very much enjoyed participating in together around Australia. He asked it at every hearing that I attended except one. That was the Brisbane hearing. Senator McKim was not able to be in Brisbane for the Brisbane hearing, and that was a shame because there was a witness at the Brisbane hearing who had a very good answer to that question. His name is Alex Wood. He is a former student at the Queensland University of Technology, and he was one of the respondents in the QUT case. Alex had heard this question was being asked, including in the hearings, so he came prepared to answer it. Unfortunately, he was not asked it by Senator McKim, because he was not able to be there, but he was asked it and he did answer it. He said that the thing that he would like to say that he is not able to say under the current law is that his university, QUT, is 'stopping segregation with segregation'. That is in fact what Alex Wood did say on Facebook on the day that he was kicked out of an unsigned Indigenous computer lab at his university.

It took Alex 3½ years and a torturous legal process, which has disrupted his life, had a severe financial impact on him and his family and the other people involved in this case and potentially damaged his career, to finally establish—after this torturous 3½-year process—that in fact he could legally say that, but not without going through that process. If there are those that argue that we should not be able to say that, fair enough, but I think it is very difficult to argue that it is fair or necessary that someone like Alex Wood should have to go through that process to establish that he should be able to say that.

The main purpose for my contribution to the debate today on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is to address one issue that I have not specifically addressed in detail in this debate so far, and that is the argument that those in favour of changing 18C, such as me, fit certain demographic attributes. It has been pointed out that some of us who are advocates of change to 18C are white. It has also been pointed out that some of us are men. And it has also been pointed out that we are men of a certain age. I think I may fail to qualify on that final category, but I certainly qualify on the former two categories. It is said that, because we are white men of a certain age, we have not experienced discrimination, and therefore we should be much more careful in advocating this change.

It is something I have considered carefully, and I have two ways in which I would like to respond to that. The first is that freedom of speech is a right of every Australian, and every Australian has an equal right to participate in the debate about free speech and to advocate sincerely for their point of view on free speech. Your gender, your race and your age have no bearing on your right as an Australian citizen to participate freely in public debate.

The second thing I would say, though, is that a corollary of this argument is the statement that is often made that ethnic communities are united in opposition to changing this law. It is certainly true, and we heard during the committee process, that many of the peak bodies that represent ethnic communities are opposed to and are concerned about changes to this law. But I believe it is incredibly patronising and condescending to not realise that there is active debate within many ethnic communities, as there is in every community on every public policy issue, and that there is a great diversity of opinion within ethnic communities on the desirability of change to 18C. I believe that those who are saying that ethnic communities are united and monolithic in opposition to this either have not been paying attention and have not been listening to the ethnic voices who are in favour of change or have decided to ignore those voices because they are inconvenient for their arguments. Either way, I think that is wrong and does not do these advocates of change justice.

That is one thing I would like to correct today by taking the opportunity to read into the Hansard the words of some of those people who have experienced discrimination in their lives, have been on the receiving end of racism, but nevertheless strongly and passionately support freedom of speech and strongly support the case for change in this law. The first is a gentleman by the name of Gideon Rozner. In the interests of full disclosure: he is an employee of my former employer, the Institute of Public Affairs, and a friend. He is also a Jewish man. He wrote in the Herald Sun in December 2016:

… many Jewish Australians, myself included, share the same concerns about 18C as an increasing number of people in the wider community. Specifically, that banning forms of expression merely because they are "insulting" or "offensive" is inherently incompatible with the right to free speech.

He goes on to say:

… the open and free society that we enjoy is as fragile as it is precious. It relies on fundamental civil and political rights, not least of all the freedom of speech.

Robert Magid, the publisher of The Australian Jewish News, wrote on 15 September 2016 in his publication:

The point about free speech, for which, over centuries, many have died, is the right to disagree. As Bob Dylan sings: 'You're right from your side and I'm right from mine.'

One man's bigot is another man's courageous defender of what many decent people think and feel. It is in the nature of satirists, comedians and cartoonists to exaggerate and very often offend. Inevitably they end up being called bigots as in the recent case of Bill Leak, one of the least bigoted people I know. Should these critics of society be looking over their shoulder to see whether the sheriff is about to take them on a perp walk?

To them it is Section 18C which is intimidating. It is not only the legal definition that is in question, but the public perception that criticising behaviour of another people in a way that might insult and offend can lead to litigation.

Dr David Adler was a powerful witness before the human rights committee. He is a member of the Sydney Jewish community, and he believes that Jewish communal organisations have not reflected well the diversity of opinion in his community. He cited, in support of his evidence, other prominent Jews who feel same way as he does, such as lawyer Geoffrey Bloch; former judge Jim Spigelman; and the New South Wales Rabbinical Council, which has been concerned about this law and is in favour of changing it. He wrote in The Spectator Australiaon 11 March this year:

What 18C does is to unreasonably constrain free speech in a manner inconsistent with Jewish theology, academic development and values. There is no evidence that 18C is an effective tool in changing a trend of anti-Semitism (there are much more effective tools) and such a law risks serious adverse consequences.

There have also been a number of prominent Indigenous advocates for change, such as Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon and Wesley Aird. I want to quote two advocates for change who I think have contributed very powerfully to this debate. Kerryn Pholi, who is an Indigenous woman, also writing in The Spectator Australia on 26 April 2014, said:

I hereby demand freedom from protection from this thing we call 'racial vilification'. I do not wish to be protected from the opinions of others. I demand the right to hear the views that other people may wish to express about me. I want this because I do not see how forcing others to shield their true opinion is of any benefit to me. Rather, it infantilises me by suggesting that I cannot handle the ugliness of life. Silencing or concealing the ugliness also exposes me to unnecessary risk, since if all others were free to express their views openly, I could at least make more informed choices about whom to associate with and whom to avoid.

Jacinta Price, a councillor on the Alice Springs Town Council, wrote in The Australian on2 February this year:

The Racial Discrimination Act's 18C treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can't speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non-Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us, especially the problems of our own making that are killing us.

…   …   …

The way to beat racism is through debate, not the closing down of debate.

Another advocate for change is Irene Moss. She is a significant advocate for change for a number of reasons. Yes, she is a woman with Chinese heritage, but she is also a former Race Discrimination Commissioner, and it was her inquiry in 1991 that in part led to the adoption of section 18C and is often cited as a justification for the adoption of section 18C. But Irene Moss does not agree. She believes that 18C is in need of reform. In an interview with Chris Merritt from The Australianon 6 March this year, she said, of the law adopted in 1994:

It had 'ignored the inquiry’s warnings that an offence which was drafted too broadly could lead to trivial complaints and confusion'. 'The current controversy with respect to section 18C was predictable,' she said.

She is in favour of reform which removes 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' from the law, which is strikingly similar to what the government has proposed. She said:

'In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility …

'I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.'

Opponents of the bill might feel it is easy to dismiss my view or the views of Senator Smith or other colleagues in this place who do not meet the right demographic criteria, according to them, in order to have the right to participate in this debate. They may disagree with people like Irene Moss, Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon, Wesley Aird, Jacinta Price, Kerryn Pholi, Gideon Rozner, Robert Magid, David Adler, Geoffrey Bloch and Jim Spigelman, and they are entitled to. But they should at least have the decency to recognise the great diversity of thought and opinion within our ethnic communities.

I would encourage them to consider that, around the world, limitations on free speech generally have been aimed at minority groups, not at benefiting them, and have come at their great cost many times throughout history. Freedom of speech—the ability to freely debate ideas and stand up for the things we believe in—has always been the best guarantor of a tolerant and harmonious liberal society. It is what has helped Australia be as tolerant, harmonious and prosperous as it is today. It is what helps other countries around the world which share our values reflect that same tolerance and harmony.

I believe that the government's bill strikes the right balance in ensuring that we do have free speech—that people, whatever their background, have the right to stand up and say what they believe and argue sincerely in favour of it, and that it remains unlawful to abuse someone on the basis of their race, as it should be.