David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

What cannot be said because of 18C? It is a question repeated ad nauseam by Labor, the Greens and the journalists who barrack for them. Today I will say some things that violate 18C and that may get no protection from 18D. I am happy to repeat them outside of parliament so that we can find out. 18C is being defended by self-appointed representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups. These largely self-appointed representatives do not subscribe to Australian values. They are encouraging the groups they purport to represent to reject the path of integration and assimilation that has served so many migrants well in the past. They are encouraging the groups they purport to represent to favour and promote the repressive policies of the places they came from.

We have self-appointed representatives of Islam, who actually represent the Salafist Islamism prevalent in Saudi Arabia, wanting to suppress any counter to the suggestion that Islam is the most feminist religion in the world. We have representatives of Chinese Australians, or at least of those Chinese Australians who swell with pride about Chinese authoritarianism, wanting to suppress anti-Chinese sentiment. We have representatives of Japanese Australians wanting to suppress all reminders of comfort women. We have representatives of Turkish Australians wanting to suppress claims of Turkish genocide, and representatives of Armenian Australians wanting to suppress the Turkish responses to their claims of genocide. We have self-appointed representatives of Jewish Australians wanting to suppress Holocaust denialism.

Labor and the Greens are doing the bidding of these self-appointed representatives in the hope of votes from the various immigrant groups, and in the process they are selling out Western values. We need to be very clear with the self-appointed representatives of immigrant groups. Australia maintains the Western Judeo-Christian civilisation, the finest civilisation of all time. We hold dear the values and institutions fostered originally in Britain and so successfully transplanted here over the past 200 years. We subscribe to equality before the law, so we are all bound by these values and institutions, whether we are descendants of those who came here tens of thousands of years ago, or we just landed here. We will prevent and punish crime, and report on it in our free press, even when the crime is disproportionately carried out by recent Sudanese migrants, second generation Lebanese Muslims, or Aborigines. We will remove your children from you if you neglect them or abuse them, even if that neglect and abuse is a consequence of your Aboriginal ancestors being dispossessed centuries ago, and subsequent mistreatment of you and your ancestors.

We believe in equality of the sexes, so you are not free to mutilate your daughter's genitals, arrange her marriage in her childhood, have sex with your wife irrespective of her willingness, or get automatic custody of your children if your marriage collapses. We believe in freedom from arbitrary arrest, an independent judiciary and the right to a fair trial, and we oppose the death penalty. That is why we will not ratify an extradition treaty with Communist China, or any other backward, repressive regime. We are a meritocracy and we hold our government to account for its use of taxpayers' funds—which is why newspaper articles should be free to mock affirmative action policies for pale-skinned Australians with some Aboriginal heritage, without those articles being deemed unlawful.

What I have just said would have offended certain people on the basis of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, so what I have just said would violate 18C. In answer to the question often posed by Labor and the Greens, these are the things that cannot be said because of 18C, except if you enjoy parliamentary privilege or are willing to pay a court-ordered penalty. What I have said may also have 'harassed' certain people, particularly if I mentioned the names of the self-appointed representatives I was referring to. Indeed, such comments may well be thought of as 'harassment' by the 'ordinary reasonable person'—so what I have said could still violate 18C even if we use the word 'harass', and even if we adopt an 'ordinary reasonable person' test, as the government's bill proposes. Finally, a court might not consider my comments to be reasonable or made in good faith, in which case I would get no protection from 18D.

The government's bill is an improvement on the status quo, and I support it. But if you support Western civilisation, the best civilisation we have ever had, 18C must go.