Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The right of every Australian to be protected from hate speech including speech that offends, insults or humiliates on the basis of race.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a matter that is indeed of great public importance. It is Labor's belief that every Australian has the right to be protected from speech that offends, insults or humiliates on the basis of race. By contrast, the Abbott government believes in the rights of the bigots. The Abbott government wants to legitimise, encourage and empower bigotry. The Attorney-General's stated rationale for the government's proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act is to protect the rights of the bigots. As he told the Senate so famously already on Monday of this week, 'people do have a right to be bigots'. Even for a government which seems to specialise in backward-looking policy, in aggressive and bullying politics, this was an extraordinary and retrograde step.

We in this country have built a remarkably tolerant, democratic and free multicultural Australia. But we all know that there are still the bigoted and the prejudiced amongst us. We all know that their conduct can humiliate, belittle, hurt and damage people. That is why, collectively, we have agreed to the protections contained in the Racial Discrimination Act and that is why those protections are needed. It is also why people in leadership positions have a responsibility to stand up to bigotry and prejudice, especially in this place. We in this place have a responsibility to denounce racial prejudice, not to defend it on specious grounds, not to encourage it by our actions or our silence and certainly not to legislate in its interests.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister proclaimed that reinstating the British honours would add a grace note to Australian society. On the same day, the government released legislation to allow Australians to be insulted and humiliated on the basis of their race. That is not a grace note. It is an ugly note—a jarring note of discord. It will encourage bullies and create division and intolerance. It will damage the fabric of our society and, most importantly, it will hurt real people, individuals who will experience real pain.

This week in the Senate, as I have said, we saw the first law officer of the land stand up, loudly and proudly defending the rights of bigots. This really revealed the ethical framework that lies behind this legislation. It reveals the philosophy which is driving this government to seek these changes—a philosophy which prioritises the rights of bigots to say what they will, ahead of the rights of individuals to be free from harassment. It puts the rights of bullies ahead of the rights of victims of bullying. It gives the professional loudmouths, the prejudiced and the ignorant a licence to trample all over the marginalised, the powerless and the vulnerable. This is a warped set of priorities and a walked philosophy. Professor Andrew Lynch, from the centre of public law at UNSW, said today:

Law is an instrument through which a community's values and rights may be given effect. In Monday's debate, Brandis came down firmly on the side of those who would give voice to racially motivated insult and offence, over those who are targeted by such comments.

I acknowledge that there are many good people in the Liberal Party who have taken a stand and who show leadership against racism and discrimination: people such as former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and people inside the Abbott government who have spoken against changes to the act, such as Mr Wyatt and Mr Laundy. But the Prime Minister and this Attorney-General have, with this legislation, revealed that they are ideological throwbacks. They are prosecuting the agenda of the narrowest of sectional interests imaginable—the sectional interests of a single powerful columnist whose opinions are amplified daily by the resources of one of the world's biggest media corporations and who evidently wields considerable power over this government. His interests are to be put ahead of the interests of so many Australians—ahead of the interests of Indigenous Australians, immigrants and the children of immigrants. One person's agenda is being allowed to trump the interests of Australians who seek to live in a decent and tolerant society.

We have previously seen this failure of leadership on race from the most senior figures in the Liberal Party, because when the Attorney-General responds to criticism of this legislation by saying, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know,' he is echoing someone we all remember. He is doing exactly as former Prime Minister John Howard did at the time when Pauline Hanson called for multiculturalism to be abolished and claimed Australia was being swamped by Asians. What was the response from the then Prime Minister? When he was asked whether Asian Australians should be protected from people like her, he said:

Well, are you saying that somebody shouldn't be allowed to say what she said? I would say in a country such as Australia people should be allowed to say that.

He defended her right to speak freely, but who did he not defend? He did not defend the rights of those she attacked, to be free of vilification. When senior political figures in this country engage in this kind of manoeuvre it sends a bad message. It sends a message that it is acceptable to rail against those who look different, and that is a point I made in my first speech to this place in 2002.

I am distressed and angry that this is a point that still needs to be made today, because we always need leadership on issues of race. It is not about denying free speech; it is about asserting the harm done by racist speech. It is not just about laws and legal protection; it is about the message influential people send to the community. And the message our Attorney-General has sent is that those who are marginalised, victimised and harassed are not a priority for this government. So when he says to Senator Peris, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know,' he is empathising with the bullies and showing callous disregard for the vulnerable. It is moral equivocation and dog-whistle politics, masquerading as support for free speech. This remark from our Attorney-General shows he does not appreciate the need for leadership in a society where people experience bigotry.

I have seen bigotry face on and it is not a pretty sight. Words have an impact. They hurt and do lasting damage—not only the words of bigots but also the words of those in leadership positions when they defend the rights of bigots and stand by silent.

As Australia's first law officer, the Attorney-General has a responsibility to show leadership on these issues. Instead, we have seen him fail the test of leadership by bringing forward these retrograde proposals. We have seen him fail the test of leadership in choosing to defend the rights of bigots rather than standing up for victims. We also see him fail that test in the way he conducts himself in public debate, because he has a predilection for getting personal—a predilection for personal attack, denigration and denunciation. We all remember his disgraceful claim in this place about there being a criminal in the Lodge.

Then, this morning, when he was asked to respond to the shadow Attorney-General's argument that the exemptions in the government's proposed section 18D were so wide that you could drive a truck through them, he responded:

I doubt the Shadow Attorney-General could drive a truck through anything frankly.

That is personal denigration rather than principled debate, abuse rather than analysis. And I will not even deign to respond to his accusation of me of bigotry. It is extraordinary and false. Frankly, Senator Brandis's predilection for going personal are the tactics of a bully stuck in the sandpit of student politics, not those of the Attorney-General of this country. What is the public benefit in removing legal protection against hate speech? There is no conceivable public benefit in enabling blatant racial attacks. How does it benefit our Australian community to make it easier for people to vilify others because of their race or ethnicity? How does it benefit our community to defend bigotry instead of tolerance? It does not benefit our community. In fact, it damages and divides our community. It is very clear that there are really two sides in this debate. We on this side—the Labor party—stand with the community, the ethnic groups, the Indigenous Australians, and the hardworking migrants who have come to Australia and who helped build this nation because it is a fair and free society. And on the other side of this debate, we have an Abbott government who stands with a powerful journalist, with libertarian ideologues, and with the defenders of bigotry. I have said before in this place: prejudice and distrust cannot build a community, but they can tear one apart.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have said before that I am a first amendment type of guy. I have long admired the American culture that values freedom of speech as a critical, non-negotiable and—I think even more importantly—virtually unconditional component of a free society. Senator Wong talks about people being attacked. I should probably declare at this point that I am a longstanding member and a former research fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs. What we have heard from the other side of this chamber—and from my good friend Senator Cameron, who has just left—over and over again is the vilification of people merely by virtue of the institute at which they work. There is a reason why the Greens and the ALP hate the Institute of Public Affairs—it is because it is not part of their public sector mentality. It challenges the precepts that they put up, and it cannot be bowed by the fact that it is not on the public sector drip, the way they wish all civil society was.

What we have just heard from Senator Wong and what we have heard constantly from those opposite, including the Greens, relies on a profound misunderstanding of what our society is. They seem to view our rights, particularly our right to speech and our right to discuss—our right to participate in democracy and in a free flow of ideas—as coming to us via a licence from politicians or judges. They seem to think that, somehow, the laws in this place determine what we are allowed and not allowed to say. That is a profound misrepresentation of our constitutional and legal history. It is only in recent times that there have been such limits on things like speech. This is a profound fissure in what we view as the role of the state, and what we view as the role of the government and its relationship with the citizens of this country. Senator Wong accused Senator Brandis of celebrating the rights of bigots. What I will say is that I condemn the bigot, but I celebrate the rights of every citizen. And that is important, because a commitment to freedom of speech only really counts when it is tested. A commitment to freedom of speech only really counts when it comes to defending something you profoundly and viscerally disagree with—and that is where my commitment to free speech lies.

It is not about the public funding of artists. I do not have to fund someone to support their right to say something. There is a profound difference between the allocation of taxpayers' resources to give someone the right to do something, and the question of whether or not they are allowed to say something. I will defend the right of someone to speak, but that does not entail and should not be confused with the idea that I should resource them to speak.

We have heard the constant complaints of those opposite over the last 48 hours about ethnic community leaders, multicultural community leaders, and their views on this particular proposal. I said at the start that I was a first amendment type of person: I view the proposal put up by the government and Senator Brandis in the exposure draft as a compromise. I accept that my views are not typical of all those in this place, or indeed all those in this country, in supporting a very strong and almost unlimited commitment to freedom of speech. The problem I have is that those opposite seem to see us as a nation of tribes; as a nation where self-declared leaders of communities—communities defined by race—should somehow have a special place in the consideration of legislation that any other Australian citizen should not. Every Australian's view has an equal standing in this place—every Australian's view, no matter what community they declare themselves to be from; whether it be one or many; and whether or not they declare themselves to be leaders of communities. The elected bodies in this country are the elected representatives of the Australian people. We do not believe in a corporatist society, or in one where there are a series of tribes where, somehow, some people have more rights than others.

The ALP and the Greens seek to define this as a debate about racism when it is not. It is a debate profoundly about speech, its limits, and the role of governments, politicians and judges in limiting the rights of our fellow citizens to express ideas. How is it our role to empower certain people in Australia, in this case judges under the current law, to determine whether another opinion is arrived at or expressed in good faith? That is the current provision in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. What happened to Andrew Bolt was that a court said that his opinion was not expressed in good faith. It did not just ban the expression of that opinion; it banned its re-publication. It had to declare an Orwellian moment—that it never happened. The point being that, of all those in this place, it was once the centre and the left of Australian politics who campaigned against censorship, yet it is the left of Australian politics who are now its greatest advocates.

Those opposite are confused between legality and licence. To not make activities illegal is not to approve of them. The great problem with speech being banned is it denies people—community leaders, as Senator Wong pointed out, and people like me, you, and others in this chamber; it denies us the opportunity to repudiate. Some speech should be repudiated. Some speech should be humiliated. Some speech should be ridiculed. But by banning it, it goes underground. In this technological world, where we cannot control the sources of news, that threat is even greater than when these laws were first passed just under two decades ago.

Those opposite confuse this with defamation law. It is an attempt to fudge the point, because defamation law often deals with issues and imputations of fact, not opinion. But this law can ban opinion. They ask why we are concerned that one journalist who they say is powerful had their opinion banned. I say, the idea that a court said that an article had to be stripped from a major newspaper's website, and banned the expression of an opinion, is something we should all be concerned about. I remember the days when we would all have been concerned about that.

The most extreme left-wing activist lawyer in the United States's ACLU would not tolerate this legislation. It shows how far the Labor Party and the Greens have moved from respect for basic individual rights for this law to even be considered, to say nothing of the laws proposed by the former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon which were going to expand the grounds for legal action of one citizen against another to an almost limitless number. Again, she confused our role of setting the boundaries as to what is illegal with regulating and proscribing the expression of opinion and expression of ideas.

I am proud to say I know Andrew Bolt. I would not necessarily describe him as a friend, only because I do not know him that well. The vilification to which he has been subjected by the professional left in this country over the last two years and the use of the law to ban him from expressing his opinion has been unprecedented. It is unprecedented in Australia's past to ban people from expressing political opinions. I know Andrew, and he does not have a racist bone in his body. But those opposite who disagree seek to use the law to suppress his views.

More harm was done to the views of those who oppose racism by this case and the ruling by Justice Bromberg that a member of the victim group shall be the standard by which racism is measured. So there was no arbitrary test that any Australian could be certain of to know when their opinion would be legal and when it would not be legal. More damage was done by the professional left activists and the legal censors who think it is their right to regulate speech in Australia. While I have always opposed these laws, they were not on the public agenda until the laws that those opposite are supporting here today meant for the first time the court was going to ban the expression of opinion. We were going to censor newspapers—and we did, because republication of Andrew Bolt's views was banned.

I was invited a couple of years ago to give a speech to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry on this point. I know Colin Rubenstein and Jeremy Jones. I know their work against racism is profound. I know they have done a lot of good work, but I respectfully disagree with them on these laws. I cannot recount all of my reasons in the time available today, but one is that in places where these laws exist, particularly in the old world of Europe where there are speech codes, there are things such as, for example, the armoured personnel carriers that I saw outside the new synagogue in Berlin just over a decade ago. They are the places with all the racial problems. It is the new world—such as Canada, which has recently repealed some of these laws, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—which has provided a home, refuge and sanctuary for people from all around the world. In particular, the communities that have been oppressed in those countries of Europe have often found refuge in the country with the freest speech on earth—and that is the United States. I have faith in my fellow citizens that we will debate this and come to the right resolution. Those opposite, sadly, do not. I do not know where it went.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday I was gobsmacked as I watched the Attorney-General unveil a proposal that he described as 'the strongest protections against racism that have ever appeared in any Commonwealth act'. I was gobsmacked because as I was listening to what he was proposing the reality of the proposal bore absolutely no resemblance to that claim. George Orwell would certainly recognise the doublespeak that we are hearing here: 'Weak is strong. Racism will set you free.'

These proposed changes from the Attorney-General will actually see a fundamental weakening of the laws which prevent racism in our society—and the Greens will have none of it. Firstly, the Attorney-General proposes to take away the current protections in the Racial Discrimination Act set out in section 18C which make it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person on the basis of their race. Instead, he will substitute a much higher bar to be met before someone can claim protection from the law. He will require 'vilification', which is narrowly defined to mean only inciting hatred against a person or group of persons. It is about inciting hatred of others; it is not about the effect on the person being vilified. He will require 'intimidation', with that only meaning a fear of physical harm. Therefore, he is leaving out psychological and emotional abuse, which we know from people who experience these things is often much more damaging. In these so-called strongest protections in Commonwealth law such behaviour will not even be caught up as a criminal offence. It will remain a civil offence. So the bar will be higher but the penalties will be no tougher.

Finally, just in case someone may get caught up in this scheme, there will be extraordinarily broad exemptions which will make it virtually impossible to take action against anyone who does meet this high threshold anyway, because the section will not apply to:

… words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated—

it is hard to imagine how you could communicate words that do not fit within those categories—

in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.

I think the exemptions have left no stone unturned.

These exemptions are so broad it will be impossible to distinguish between legitimate debate and hate speech. There is no requirement for reasonableness or good faith. And there is no requirement to consider the effects of the vilification from the point of view of the person being vilified. Without any definition of public discussion, these exemptions could even include a water cooler debate at a workplace. Yet we have the Attorney-General's constantly repeated claim that he is offering the 'strongest protections against racism that have ever appeared in any Commonwealth act'.

The Human Rights Law Centre has said this claim is astonishing and not backed by any basic analysis. They say that 'these changes substantially weaken the existing protection'. That is what the community is also saying. That is why people are up in arms and so are organisations like the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, along with representatives from Australia's Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities, to name just some of them. That is because they know the experience of racial abuse and discrimination on a daily basis. They know the consequences—eroding of sense of self, wellbeing and worth—in Australia.

Let us remember that Justice Bromberg, in the celebrated Eatock v Bolt case, said that it was significant that young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity may be apprehensive to identify as Aboriginal or publicly identify as Aboriginal as a result of witnessing the ferocity of Mr Bolt's attacks on the individuals dealt with in the articles.

This change would ensure that similar attacks will happen in Australia in the future and there will be many more of them, with devastating consequences for the people targeted. The Australian Greens are proud to stand up with multicultural groups to say no to these proposed repeals. We can reconcile freedom of speech with the freedom to participate fully and safely in our community without being racially abused. The Australian Greens will reject this shameful proposal.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, many members of parliament celebrated Harmony Day. But this week, this government has given a slap in the face to that day. It has given a slap in the face to multicultural Australia. Why is that? That is through the proposed changes that Senator Brandis has introduced into this place that give people in a position of privilege—people like Senator Brandis and people like Andrew Bolt—a platform to be racist.

Is that really the kind of society that we want to live in in Australia? After nearly six months, the first piece of legal reform that our Attorney-General in this country wants to bring into this parliament to become Australian law is the kind of law that will allow more racist activity and more bigotry in this nation, with little recourse for those who are being abused and vilified to have any resolve.

The victims of racial abuse do not have the same position of power or the same position of privilege that those like Senator Brandis and Mr Andrew Bolt have. They are not in that same position to defend themselves. This is not a level playing field. There is a clear power imbalance and that is why we have the Racial Discrimination Act providing some recourse for addressing that imbalance. The current laws in question, sections 18C and 18D, work perfectly fine. The majority of disputes brought before the Human Rights Commission are resolved through mediation. The law works. It is there working perfectly fine.

I understand that Senator Brandis knows the law all too well. I am sure that his understanding of the law is very fine. But while he may have an understanding of the law, I believe he would have little understanding of racism. If he did have an understanding of racism, he would know how these changes do not provide protection to people from racial abuse. He has narrowed these new racial discrimination amendment proposals so that they are so narrow that anyone being racially abused has little opportunity or recourse for what has occurred to them to be addressed. He has narrowed the laws so that the word 'vilify' only means to incite hatred against a person and that 'intimidate' is narrowed to causing fear or physical harm.

If that was not enough, he has then put a huge range of exceptions to all of that in section 4. Despite the outcry from various sections of the ethnic and broader community—some 150 organisations; some of which Senator Brandis has met himself—he has chosen to ignore them entirely and instead adopt what Andrew Bolt and the IPA have wanted all along.

I am all for freedom of speech but not at any cost, not at the cost of people being racially abused and not when it comes to issues of race. They are some of the views that have also been put forward by a number of those ethnic organisations. They are organisations including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Chinese organisations, Korean organisations, Arab organisations and the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples.

These changes are before us. I encourage the community to put their views forward and their objections forward, because thus far I have seen no one standing up for any changes that Senator Brandis has put forward to our Racial Discrimination Act other than his mate Andrew Bolt.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by agreeing with the remarks of Senator Singh that she made at the end. I encourage the Australian community to participate in the consultation process around these changes too. That is the entire reason that a consultation draft of legislative changes proposed by the government has been released, because it is a consultation draft, it is open for people to give feedback and it is open to improvement. I welcome the fact that that is the process that the government has undertaken. I have confidence that through that process the views of the community will be heard and the right balance will ultimately be found in legislative changes that are brought to this place.

I abhor racism, I abhor homophobia and I abhor religious intolerance. I believe deeply that the vast majority, if not every single one, of the members and senators in this place shares those sentiments. This debate around the Racial Discrimination Act is not a debate about whether or not some views are offensive. It is not even a debate about whether or not we should speak out, as leaders of the Australian community, against some of those views that we find to be offensive. Of course we should speak out, of course we should argue against those views that we find offensive and of course we should take a leadership role in that regard.

This debate is about law. It is about the laws of this country and it is about when it is that someone should have recourse to legal proceedings because of what someone else has said, when it is that someone should be able to engage through legal action purely because of what someone else has said. Ultimately this is, of course, about drawing lines in the sand, and there will always be grey areas in an action like this on either side of those lines. We discovered a couple of years ago that, for much of the community, there was concern that the way the laws were currently structured inhibited political debate to too great an extent. As a nation that treasures its freedoms, we should be respecting the freedom of speech just as much as we respect the right to protect those minority groups, those Australians who may be subject to racism, to homophobia or to religious intolerance from activities that would bring harm to them.

As a believer of free speech, I am one who looks back on the quotes of some of those in the past and at the often misquoted, or misattributed, quote of Voltaire which said:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

As I said, that was a slightly misattributed quote and is, in fact, an interpretation of Voltaire's views. The accurate quote from 1770 is:

I detest what you write, but I will give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

In this day and age we recognise that some things cross the line, which are unacceptable to have published, that can indeed incite hatred and can indeed vilify individuals or groups of people. We should rightly draw a line around those issues, but we must make sure that in drawing that line, in providing those protections for individuals against racism—as we should seek to do—we do not do so at the expense of genuine political debate, at the expense of genuine free speech, and at the expense of genuine artistic freedom in this country.

These are matters that we should stand up for. When somebody says something that we, as leaders of Australia, find to be offensive we should speak out against it. We should, as leaders, take up the challenge, which Senator Singh highlighted, in relation to people who may not have the same power of voice and make sure that their voices are heard through this place and through the media, and that we take a strong stand against intolerance. Taking a strong stand against intolerance, setting the right example for the community and trying to drive a change in community attitudes does not necessarily mean that we must always outlaw an action. It does not necessarily mean that we must always provide recourse to the law to do so. Oftentimes we will achieve the cultural change that we seek. We will achieve the change in community attitudes through leadership, through better behaviour, through better arguments, and through a sound adoption of principles and principled arguments against those who may apply racist activities.

Much has been made in this debate about the word 'bigotry' and whether or not bigotry is acceptable. Just as laws are made of words, words have meanings and in law the meaning is exceptionally important. The Oxford Dictionary defines bigotry as:

Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines bigotry as:

A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same belief is wrong.

One would be forgiven for thinking, on occasion, that there is much bigotry because people in this place hold very strong opinions and often think that the opinions of others, which are equally strongly held, are emphatically wrong. I think most of us in this place are tolerant towards each other's beliefs and opinions, even if we disagree with them vehemently. But, of course, bigotry itself, though not an admirable trait, is not something that the current laws make illegal nor something that the proposed laws would make illegal, and nor should it be. People should be free to hold views that are different from one another, even where those views may seem to be unreasonable to many others in the community.

We should not allow this debate to be sidetracked by the misinterpretation of a word like 'bigotry' or by misunderstanding of what a word like that may mean. We should be clear that this debate is about that extreme level of unacceptable conduct, behaviour and language that we decide is appropriate to write laws about, to draw that line around and say, 'That is too far for the Australian community to accept and for the parliament of Australia to accept.' In doing so we must ensure that we balance that against the free speech objectives that we should, as a nation, seek to stand by.

As I emphasised at the outset, the government has released for consultation draft changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Those draft changes have what some in this debate should all be warmly welcoming. The changes have, for the first time, prescribed racial vilification as being inappropriate behaviour. The changes have singled that out as an activity that will never be acceptable in this country. We should welcome the fact that there will be, over the coming months, a proper debate about racial vilification, about how it is defined, about whether it is appropriately defined in current law or about whether it is appropriately defined in the proposed law. Of course, it is not defined at all in current law. It is not even mentioned in the current law. But it is mentioned and it is defined in the proposal that is being released for public commentary.

I hope that all members of the community with an interest in this topic do actively participate in this debate. I hope they do so by looking very precisely at the words in the proposed laws, at those laws themselves and at the effect they will have. I hope they do so under the guiding principle of ensuring that we are as tolerant a nation as possible—but with as much opportunity for free speech as possible. That is a line that will be drawn somewhere at the end of this debate. I hope we draw it successfully in a manner that meets those dual objectives and ensures we end up with a law that is more workable than the one we currently have has proven to be.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we pass any law in this place, we should ask ourselves a pretty basic question. I am sure my colleagues on the coalition side will be pleased to hear me put this proposition. The question is: what is the problem we are trying to solve? Let us not waste the parliament's time. Let us not pass more legislation—which is what is being proposed here—if we are not solving a serious problem.

I do not remember being bombarded with lots of correspondence about the need to get rid of section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act. I do not recall, over the past 20 years, people protesting in the street because they felt their freedom of speech was being impinged upon. I do not remember seeing protests about this issue. Most people understand that it is not appropriate to hurl racist insults at people and that, if they do, there are consequences.

The only clamour for a change to this law is coming straight out of Holt Street, straight out of News Corp, whose version of free speech is, 'Anything I say is okay and we will be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in this area.' And News Corp's poster child is that right-wing wacko Andrew Bolt. That is where the clamour is coming from to change these laws.

We need to understand what these laws actually do. I listened to an esteemed presenter on the ABC this morning implying that people who express an extreme bigoted opinion should be sent to jail. That cannot occur under these laws. It is not a criminal offence to express such an opinion. I think people do not understand how this legislation actually works. If you use racist, hateful language that has an impact on another individual, they have the right to seek mediation. That is a good thing. Most of these cases are settled through mediation and someone learns a valuable lesson about the impact of hate speech on other people. Occasionally, as in the Bolt case, it can end up in court. What does the court do in those situations? They might order an apology, which is what happened in the Bolt case. He was issued with a court order to apologise, he was forced to retract his article and he was ordered not to publish it elsewhere. That is a small price to pay when you consider the impact of this behaviour on other people.

All of us in this place support freedom of speech. But what about the freedom of a young Muslim woman on a tram—being free to travel without having people hurl racist insults at her? What about the right of an Aboriginal man to be served at a venue without having racist insults hurled at him? What about the freedom of a young Asian boy in the classroom to get about his business without being the subject of racist taunts? That is what this legislation is about—nothing more, nothing less.

Senator Brandis talks about the 'chill effect' as though there are teams of writers and lawyers poring over work that cannot be published because—God forbid—there might be something in it that might be racist towards others. He says that without being able to cite any evidence of it occurring. If these laws give journalists pause to think that the impact of what they are writing may in fact cause harm to others, that is a good thing. If they are forced to apologise because they do cause harm to others, that is a good thing.

Far from having a chilling effect, this action by the government will have a heating effect. It will flush out the racists and the bigots and give them, to use the Prime Minister's words, the 'green light' to use their hate speech against others. There has been a lot of talk about green lights, amber lights and red lights, but this government is putting this sign up in flashing lights—'Racists and bigots, you are welcome in Australia'. Well, you are not. These laws exist because we as a government have a role in protecting people from hateful speech.

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

I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance. This issue highlights the difference between Labor and the Liberals. Labor believes racial abuse and hate speech is never okay. The Liberals believe, as the Attorney-General said, that the rights of bigots need to be protected.

On Monday in this house I asked whether his changes to the Racial Discrimination Act would facilitate vilification by bigots. In response the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of Australia, said

People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive, insulting or bigoted.

It was a disgraceful statement and it is disgusting. His statement is a green light to racism and hate speech. What message does this send to our young Australians at a time when we are trying to stop bullying? This is an admission from the Attorney-General that his changes to the Racial Discrimination Act will provide for bigotry.

For the record, I am not against free speech, not at all. What I am against is promoting hate speech. I am extremely disappointed that we are even having this debate. It upsets me that we are having a debate about whether the law of the Commonwealth of Australia makes it okay to be a bigot. We are having a debate about whether it is okay to attack someone based on their race or religion. I thought we had moved on. What happened to, 'In history's page, let every stage advance Australia fair'?

You do not have to be Aboriginal or from one of the many international cultures that make Australia so fantastic to be appalled by the Attorney-General's position. You do not have to have been personally subjected to racial abuse to oppose his views. You do not have to be a victim of hate to be offended by the changes proposed to the Racial Discrimination Act by the Abbott government. But I have been personally vilified by bigots. It is a horrible feeling, it is shattering and it hurts to the core of your existence. I played sport at the highest level and at times I was exposed to a mentality that anything that happens on the field stays on the field. But I really thought we had moved on in society. But some of the language I have heard from the Attorney-General in his attempts to defend his position remind me of the attempts by some people 20 years ago to defend racism on the sporting field. In relation to this debate in this parliament, he said:

… we offend and, I dare say, we insult each other every day. That is part of the robustness of the discussion of public issues.

But we are not attacking or offending or insulting each other every day based on race, religion or ethnic background. The Attorney-General simply does not understand or get racial abuse. He does not understand how much it hurts. Racial vilification and political criticism are two completely different things. The Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes, an AFL champ, could not care less if people criticise or abuse him for the way he plays football, but we have all seen the devastating effect racial abuse has on people. They are not the same. During my sporting career, I did not care if people attacked or criticised me for my performance on the field, but I did care when I was attacked and criticised for the colour of my skin and called a 'nigger' by my own Aussie team mate, and I took action against it. Racism hurts.

The changes announced yesterday by the Attorney-General water down the Racial Discrimination Act. Pretty much anyone and everyone can say anything at any time. All they have to do is claim that it was part of public discussion. It is shameful. Darwin, my home town, is a wonderful multicultural city and I know many people will be appalled and personally hurt by these changes. Tony Abbott said he would be the Prime Minister for Aboriginal people. As an Aboriginal Australian, I urge him to listen to Aboriginal people and abandon his changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Listen to Adam Goodes, our Australian of the Year. Listen to Warren Mundine, the man who heads up his council. Listen to the people in our community who are fearful that these changes mean that they will be subjected to more abuse, more insults and more humiliation.

The Prime Minister says he is opposed to racial vilification, but you cannot be opposed to racial vilification while supporting the right to bigotry. I condemn the comments of the Attorney-General, George Brandis; I condemn the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act; and I condemn those opposite who support the Attorney-General's comments and his backward legislation.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important debate. It goes to the heart of how far we think we have progressed as a democratic nation. It goes to the heart of how we balance those freedoms that set us apart from so many other citizens in our global community. It is clear from today's debate that there are a variety of views, and that is why the government's decision to have an exposure draft, to invite community opinion and to encourage community discussion on this is a good process. It would have been very disappointing—it would have been indefensible—if the government had come to a position and not provided an opportunity for the community and the parliament to debate it in a calm and measured way.

I do not doubt for a moment that the views of others that are different from mine are genuinely held, and I give them great generosity, because I understand that my lived experience will be very different from the lived experience so far of many others. I cannot comprehend the shattering hurt that people may have felt over their lived experience so far as a result of racism. From my own personal experience, I know the shattering hurt that can come from homophobic thoughts and actions. But my lived experience means that I will be listening carefully to the views of many Australians—not just elected representatives but others across the community—on this sensitive issue.

But I start from the position of supporting freedom. I start from the position of trusting Australians. I start from the position of saying that bigotry, homophobia and religious intolerance should be pulled out of the darkness and put in a public place and that we should educate with speech and discussion to deter people from those ill-founded thoughts. Of course, in a nation as big as ours, we will not always be able to put hand on heart and know that 100 per cent of Australians are free from ignorant or ill-considered thoughts, but the debate that we are engaging in is one about whether or not we think the community can step up, the government can step back and, as a result of that, our democratic fabric can be strengthened over time and not weakened. I am sure I speak for many, many Western Australians who believe that racism is not tolerated in our country and should be combated, but many will argue that part of our democratic evolution is for government and laws to step back so that communities can step up to the challenge.

I believe that this matter of public importance is based on a false premise. If I understand the opposition's position correctly, it is that racism is festering and contagious throughout Australia and the only thing holding it back is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a straw-man argument. Nobody said that.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that is true. Excuse me, Senator Cameron. You will have an opportunity to debate this.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, please address your comments to the chair.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To put it more bluntly, I believe that the coalition has a little more faith in the basic decency, not to mention the intelligence, of Australians than others in this place may do. I am confident that that faith is not misplaced. This MPI highlights the basic problem with those who are critical of the government's exposure draft. At their core, I do not believe they trust humanity; I do not believe they trust human progress.

Why is Australia a tolerant and open society today? I would argue it is because Australians are of themselves open and tolerant, are decent to their core, do not need to be told by bureaucrats or politicians that they need to introduce— (Time expired)

Mehmet Tillem (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address a pressing matter of public importance—that being the Liberal Party's determination to open the door to racial vilification in this country. I have a message for Senator Brandis: you should not be the cheerleader or the poster boy for racial vilification in this country, particularly under the unconvincing guise of freedom of speech. We have heard Senator Brandis claim this week that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act fails to protect individuals or groups from vilification on the basis of race. This is not true.

We have heard that he intends to demolish this section of the act and, perhaps most alarmingly, that everyone has the right to be a bigot. Our history is littered with moments we can look back on and wish had not happened. This is one of those moments. On an issue as vital as this, it is critical that the government show some leadership. Perhaps Senator Brandis's comments were a slip of the tongue or a deliberate dog whistle to the ugly face of Australian society. Either way, Senator Brandis and his party have been exposed for what they are. They keep talking about an exposure draft, but they themselves have been exposed. They have been exposed as grotesque apologists for racial hatred and as defenders of racism under the thin and tiresome veneer of their misguided interpretation of free speech.

Senator Brandis's claims that the Racial Discrimination Act fails to protect people from racial vilification are false. Section 18C makes racial vilification unlawful. It provides those who need it a necessary recourse under the law. This is exactly what happened in the Federal Court case against Andrew Bolt a couple of years ago—he failed to take the opportunity to appeal that decision. Considering this, it is obvious that Senator Brandis has misled the Australian people. He has been condescending to senators who have asked legitimate questions about his intentions to dynamite section 18C, arrogantly acting as though anyone asking a question does not know what they are talking about. As the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis is the highest law officer in this country. He should not be fanning the flames of jingoistic nationalism and racism or offering platitudes to a handful of coalition sympathisers.

As someone from an ethnic background, from a minority and from a group that has been persecuted in this country, I know what racism is all about. Coming from Victoria, the most diverse state and place in the world, we know what it is like, but there are thousands upon thousands of success stories of multiculturalism which have undeniably enriched our community. The fabric they have woven throughout the community is strong and has endured. It is strong because it was woven through adversity. Language barriers, social exclusion and economic disadvantage were all mountains that people have overcome. Each fibre of this fabric is a testament to the challenges that these people have faced and overcome to make a better life for themselves. It is a story of determination. Theirs is a story of finding a piece of Australia through honest hard work and a can-do attitude, yet what Senator Brandis is proposing to do will unravel this.

Despite the shining success of Australia's multiculturalism and steps taken to reconcile our past with our first Australians, there are still disturbing elements of racial hatred in this country. It is incumbent upon this parliament—this Senate and those in the other place—to show leadership. That is not what has come from those opposite. Racial vilification is intellectually flawed, morally bankrupt and socially divisive. Australia deserves better from this government.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has expired.