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

I would like to ask the Attorney-General about the three inquiries which preceded the introduction of the original law in 1994 by the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, and which we are seeking to amend today. I wanted to check my understanding of what it was that those three inquiries recommended and how the law as it stands today is consistent or, in fact, not consistent with what those laws recommended. I am indebted to the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, for my understanding of this issue, but I will seek your views on whether this is correct.

Mr Wilson wrote in an article for The Australian newspaper on 9 November last year that, in fact, the recommendations of those three inquiries, including the royal commission, were not reflected in the law that was subsequently introduced and passed by the parliament. In support of his view he cites the bills digest produced by the Parliamentary Library into the bill. It says:

… the Racial Hatred Bill 1994 is in some aspects completely contrary to the recommendations of these three reports.

Attorney-General, in your understanding of what those reports recommended and what the parliament subsequently adopted, is the law consistent with what they recommended? If it is not, in which way is it not consistent?