Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer the Attorney-General to his celebration of bigotry in question time yesterday and his hastily conveyed press conference this morning. Is the Attorney-General familiar with Campbell v Kirstenfeldt, an action brought under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in which the applicant had been subject to six separate acts of racial hatred language? Is the hate speech used in this case the speech that the Attorney-General wants to protect by repealing section 18C?

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

With all due respect, Senator, there are so many false assumptions in the question I barely know where to begin. Let me start with the last: the government was elected with a promise to repeal section 18C in its current form. The reason we decided to make that commitment and the reason we have decided to publish this exposure draft today is that we do not believe that the freedom of speech protections in the existing section 18C are sufficient and we do not believe that the protections against racism in the existing section 18C are—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! I am entitled and the person asking the question is entitled to hear the answer. On my left, order!

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

Senator Peris, you must know by now—although you apparently did not know yesterday—that the Racial Discrimination Act in fact contains no prohibition against racial vilification. Some state and territory acts do—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Brandis, just resume your seat. I am going to stop you because you are entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Peris is entitled to hear the answer.

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

Senator Peris, the problem with section 18C is that it does not do either of those things properly. It does not protect freedom of speech, which is why it had to be repealed in its current form, and it does not protect people from racial vilification either. The point the government makes to you, if only you would listen, is that it is possible to do both. It is possible to have a carefully, appropriately worded provision which does address the evil of incitement to racial violence while at the same time maintains appropriate protections for public discussion. It is a shame, Senator Peris, if I may say so, that one cannot have this conversation in Australia without being accused of false motives.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I am waiting to give Senator Peris the call.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the Attorney-General's changes which have removed the good faith test for protected political speech, as recommended by the Institute of Public Affairs. I also refer to the Institute of Public Affairs welcoming the changes as 'a huge step in the right direction'. Does the Attorney-General agree that this step will enable bigots to express their views in bad faith?

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

I agree that the proposed changes are a huge step in the right direction and I welcome the contribution of all who have contributed to this discussion, including the Institute of Public Affairs. The Institute of Public Affairs—if you did not know, Senator Peris—is an institute that has been in existence for 70 years and is dedicated to the cause of the promotion of freedom. It is particularly concerned with section 18C, a concern which the government shares and which is shared by most people I know in this country. The way section 18C is constructed—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order, on my left—Senator Singh and Senator Collins!

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

The Institute of Public Affairs is not the only group of thoughtful people who have welcomed these provisions. The Human Rights Commission, speaking through the Human Rights Commissioner, has welcomed these provisions. Senator Peris, if you studied the provisions carefully, I think you yourself might acknowledge that they are a huge step forward.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

When there is silence, I will give Senator Peris the call.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why is the Attorney-General defending the rights of people who use language that offends, insults and humiliates others on the basis of race?

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

Senator Peris, because we believe those words do not allow appropriate freedom of public discussion.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Brandis, resume your seat. On my left, if you wish to debate the issue, the time is after the end of question time and not now.

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

That is why we propose to repeal those words from the Racial Discrimination Act. The very worst way of dealing with a problem of this kind is through political censorship. The worst way of dealing with a problem of this kind is to say, 'But you may not discuss this problem for fear that you might offend someone or for fear that you might insult someone.' Every day in this chamber we say things to you and you say things to us that may be offensive, but that is what public debate involves.

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, interjecting is disorderly.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I am not going to give Senator Bernardi the call until there is silence in the chamber. When there is silence on both sides, we will proceed.