Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The bill seeks to change the wording of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by removing the words 'offend', insult' and 'humiliate' and replacing them with 'harass'. Let me be clear that the changes in this bill will weaken protection for Australians against racial hate speech. We will not support this or any other change to 18C. Labor's position is rock solid.

We also have issues with a number of changes this bill will make to the complaints-handling process of the Australian Human Rights Commission. These have been poorly drafted and rushed through without adequate consultation. I note that we are open to changes to the complaints-handling processes of the Human Rights Commission, but we cannot and will not support the changes in this bill as they stand.

Earlier this week, Senator Brandis again referred to the Turnbull government's changes as a 'strengthening' of 18C. I know I am not the only one scratching my head, wondering how on earth the law will be strengthened by removing 'insult', 'offend' and 'humiliate' from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Our Prime Minister says, 'This is the language that will do the job,' because, apparently, 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' do not do the job.

This out-of-touch government also claims that these changes will allow more freedom of speech. Let me make one thing clear: there is no freedom of speech crisis here in Australia—none whatsoever. What I really want to know is what the Prime Minister wants people to be able to say that they cannot now under the current law. It is a very simple question but not one that has yet been answered. No matter which way you look at the government's changes, they guarantee there will be more racist hate speech in Australia than there is now. After all, how can it be about freedom of speech unless it is going to allow more things to be said?

I want to turn my attention to the Senate inquiry. I actually was not part of that inquiry, but, if the government were really trying to strengthen the act, Aboriginal Legal Service would not have been barred from the Senate inquiry into the proposed changes last Friday. The exclusion of the Aboriginal Legal Service from Friday's hearings into the proposed changes to section 18C was disgusting and speaks volumes about this government. The government have exposed themselves as complete and utter hypocrites on the subject of free speech. Instead of standing with multicultural Australia, they have sided with bigots.

The proposal to weaken section 18C has been rejected nationally and by our multicultural communities. Replacing the words 'offend' and 'insult' with 'harass' is not harmless change. On Sky News on Tuesday night Andrew Bolt stated that a person would have to be insulted on the basis of their race five times before they would fall under the government's definition of 'harassment'. Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Bolt's definition of harassment under the proposed changes to section 18C? If he does not, what is his own definition? The wordsmith on the other side of this place, Senator Brandis, has said that 'harass' means 'to bother'. How is this not weakening of the laws?

This may not be a real issue for those opposite, but it is a very real issue for international students who are being heckled and abused on their way home, the woman on the train or the bus being racially abused as she rides home from work or the taxi driver who was racially abused from the back seat by his passenger because of the colour of his skin. It is easy for those on the opposite side to belittle a protection they never need. It is easy to dismiss a hurt they have never felt.

I personally was very fortunate in my upbringing in Tasmania because I never experienced racism at all. My father survived 3½ years as a prisoner of the Japanese in the Second World War. He survived the Burma Railway and Changi, and he taught us children to be tolerant. He in no way had any racist undertones toward anyone. That is how I was brought up. Unfortunately, when I got married—my husband was born in Germany—our children, who are white, everyday kids experienced firsthand the racist comments in relation to their heritage and their father's heritage. To go to school and be told 'Your father murders people,' 'Your father kills people,' 'Why does he do that?' 'Because he's a Nazi,' is something we should not tolerate in this country. We should not tolerate it now and we certainly should not be weakening the laws to allow people to feel that they can say what they want and that there are no ramifications for what they say.

We were all elected here to be the voice of people who need our help. Words hurt, and this is a very real issue for people who are not getting their voices heard by those on the opposite side. Each and every passing week, this government prove themselves to be more out of touch with the people they represent. It is the one thing they are good at. You cannot make this sort of stuff up. Last Tuesday was the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and in every school it was Harmony Day, but at Parliament House it was the day the government announced it wanted to change the law to give permission for more racist hate speech. Then, to add to the government's absurdity over this, we had Senator Brandis saying that these changes to 18C defended the free speech that the Anzacs fought for. I do not believe that is an accurate reflection at all.

Now we are standing here because the government is seeking to rush through these changes without any proper consultation. I ask again: how out of touch does this government have to get? Former Prime Minister John Howard has even joined the debate, strongly supporting the government's planned amendments. Mr Howard said that these changes would reverse more than two decades of what he called 'pointless Labor legislation'. Just last week Mr Christopher Pyne was on radio, saying that section 18C had been twisted and no longer had any credibility. Let me ask you: how is a law that halts racial offence, insults and humiliation pointless? What does that say about this government? What does that say to young people? What does it say to the people who make up this country? What does it say to the multicultural communities in this country?

The government's changes will weaken protection against racial hate speech and racial discrimination—protection that has served Australians well for more than 20 years. We won the fight to protect Australia's laws against racial discrimination in 2014 and we will do it again. I think the government is just obsessed with 18C, and it is so unnecessary and so unfounded. Even the Racial Discrimination Commissioner said there is absolutely no case to make changes to prohibition of speech that insults, offends, humiliates or intimidates a person based on race. How on earth is this country going to be improved by more racial hatred? The answer is very simple: it is not—not today and certainly not tomorrow.

Mr Turnbull says we have a freedom of speech crisis in this country, but we do not. What we do have is a health crisis, childcare reforms which need to be fixed and 1.13 million people underemployed. We have an aged-care workforce crisis. These are the real issues that people in the community are concerned about. They are concerned about the cuts to penalty rates. They are concerned about the cuts to family payments. These are the issues people are talking about.

The government's changes to section 18C will not create new jobs or put an extra nurse in the ward or help any pensioners. They will not save penalty rates or provide the people of Tasmania with new infrastructure, and they certainly will not improve the lives of Tasmanian families. The Liberal Party's obsession with this shows everyone just how out of touch they really are. The Prime Minister can talk about free speech and political correctness all he likes, but the proposed changes to 18C have nothing to do with either of these things. The fact that I am standing here today, fighting to stop the government's changes that weaken protection against racial hate speech, is all you need to know about this government. How can they come to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to remove 'insult', 'offend' and 'humiliate' from the law? I do not know and I do not understand. What sort of government says that racial humiliation, offence and insults are okay, but harassment is not okay? Racial hate speech is real, it is demoralising and it hurts, and the last thing we should do is change the laws to allow more of it

Labor will oppose any attempts to weaken protection for Australians against racial hate speech. We will not support any changes to section 18C of this bill as it stands, and I urge those on the crossbench to vote against these changes.