Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We have heard ad nauseam the arguments from Senator Brandis, Senator Macdonald, Senator Paterson—at nauseating length—and Senator Abetz. They are all seeking to use the Leak case as an argument for reform of 18C, as an argument for reform of the processes of the Human Rights Commission. Those arguments are spurious. They are not based on a reasonable observation of the facts of the matter regarding the Leak case. The commission was falling over itself to seek a submission from Mr Leak, from The Australianor from the legal representatives of Mr Leak and The Australianin regard to 18D. There was a clear, unambiguous defence under 18D—

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

It had everything to do with 18D.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

I will take that interjection even though I did not hear it—it was a bit of a mumble—

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

You can just mumble away like Bill the Steam Shovel over there all you like. It does not worry me, because what I am doing is reading the facts into the Hansard so that anyone who is listening to this debate, anyone who might read the Hansard in the future, knows the facts. And the facts of the matter are that the legal representatives of Mr Leak and The Australian steadfastly refused to make an 18D submission to the Human Rights Commission. The president of the commission, Professor Triggs, has given evidence to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that, had such a submission been made, it was highly likely that the commission would have moved immediately to dismiss the matter. Make no mistake, Mr Leak had an unambiguous defence under section 18D; he just chose not to exercise it—and neither did the Australian.