Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Conroy, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I remind the minister that his own Labor colleagues are quoted today as saying that the government's now dumped antidiscrimination reforms were 'a waste of time' and 'a disaster'. Is the minister aware that the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, on the other hand has described this bill as 'just a tidying up of existing antidiscrimination laws'? If the Gillard government cannot even get a simple tidying up of legislation right, isn't this just another example of the gross ineptitude and incompetence that is the hallmark of this Labor government?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General today made a very positive announcement that the government will introduce this week legislation to protect Australians against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. This reform is long overdue and too important to be delayed any further. I completely reject the assertion by some in the media and those opposite, including the Greens, that taking this immediate step somehow constitutes a disavowal of the wider antidiscrimination project or a step back from commitment to protect fundamental human rights. For 40 years Labor has promoted principles of fairness and equality by developing the sex, disability and racial discrimination acts and creating the Australian Human Rights Commission. We will not roll back these hard-fought-for protections.

The fact is that the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 recommended significant policy, definitional and technical amendments along with almost 100 further suggestions from key groups such as the Law Council of Australia. These proposals require deeper consideration of how to consolidate five bodies of antidiscrimination law into one. It seems something that we need to get right, which is exactly why we released an early exposure draft. In the meantime, these specific new protections take into account feedback from the consultation process on the antidiscrimination bill to ensure the definitions are meaningful and provide the maximum possible protection. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister concede that these now abandoned changes went much further than a simple consolidation and instead represented a further attempt by the Attorney-General and the government to impose on the Australian people a far-reaching regime of political correctness and to prosecute its anti-free-speech agenda?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To claim that the government is pursuing an anti-free-speech agenda is such rank hypocrisy. Yesterday we had a debate and discussion as part of question time—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Yeah, just like David Cameron, another hater of free speech! Just like David Cameron, a Conservative Prime Minister, underpinning his legislative press council.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about his legislation, now abandoned. It is not directly relevant to that question to be lecturing the Senate about what the United Kingdom government might be doing with unrelated legislation.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is addressing the question. The minister did take an interjection. The interjections are disorderly. I remind the minister to ignore interjections. The minister still has 31 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite actually support contracts which gag not-for-profit agencies. Put up your hands and say you will not do it. Put up your hands and stop the gagging of legitimate not-for-profit agencies.

These new protections build on the government's reforms—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're trying to gag the newspapers, Stephen!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yep—David Cameron and me! These new protections build on the government's reforms to 85 Commonwealth acts. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the government has surrendered on this front in its attack on freedom of speech, will it now abandon its other attack on freedom of speech—namely, its plans to muzzle the media?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right: those opposite talk about muzzling the free press. They talk about a statutory underpinning meaning that you have muzzled the free press. Let's look at what David Cameron and the Conservative Party in the UK have done in the last 24 hours. They have agreed to embed a legislative underpinning for an independent free—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Once again the point of order goes to relevance. The minister was not asked about British legislation. He was asked about Australian legislation. When you overruled my point of order on the previous supplementary question I understood you to say that the minister was within the standing orders because he was responding to an interjection. He is not responding to an interjection now. Nothing he has said in answer to this question is relevant to Australia.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. Let me just make one thing clear: I did not rule the interjection in order. I said the interjection was out of order and I said the minister should not answer interjections. The minister should ignore interjections. So you should not say something that I did not say. The minister still has 37 seconds remaining.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have to say that that point of order again demonstrated that those opposite will misrepresent anything. They stood up and said, 'Mr President, I shrunk the question'—suddenly rewrote the question, as he stood there, when the question accuses the government of gagging free speech on the basis of a statutory underpinning for a press council. What can we say around the world? In Finland, No. 1 with Reporters Without Borders, they have a statutory underpinning to their processes. What do Reporters Without Borders say? The No. 1 free-speech country in the world— (Time expired)