Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from Senator Moore:

Dear Mr President

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for the Senate to affirm its support for section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in its current form."

Is the proposal supported?

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.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion calls on the Senate but particularly the government to show some leadership rather than the B-grade governance we have seen in recent months and, most especially, during the period of this new Senate. Last session, with respect to leadership, we saw, as we can all understand and still see today, the budget chaos. Indeed, we saw Senate chamber chaos over the two sitting weeks at the end of the last period. We saw evidence of this yesterday in the discussion about the budget. I suppose I am calling this lack of leadership along the path of the Bs. It seemed, yesterday, that we do not talk about the budget anymore. There are not the dorothies about the budget that we saw in the past from government senators, and the government remains quite unclear about what it wants to do about the budget. In fact, some of the characterisations are practically in denial. We do not know whether we have a budget emergency or not. It depends on who you talk to and on what day.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn't know.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston says 'I wouldn't know.' Yesterday we saw ignorance from senior government ministers about the Parliamentary Budget Office and its statement related to the budget. We saw complete ignorance about the likely blow-out of the PPL—the Prime Minister's champion program. We saw ignorance of that. At the last session, and most related to this motion, we saw concern from Senator Brandis for bigots' rights—not a broader concern that one might expect from a competent Attorney-General but a narrow concern with the issues of the rights of bigots. On another side, though, fortunately, we did see a backflip with respect to the National Security Legislation Monitor. This was a very good thing, because if we are going to act competently on national security then we need the provisions and the balance to secure the protections in that system as well.

During the break we saw some astounding stunts. We saw that Senator Brandis needs to lift his head out of his books for a while and understand exactly what metadata is—and that is probably highlighted by the vote we just saw a moment ago. There is an astounding, surprisingly strong level of support from the Senate for better action with respect to metadata. better transparency and a more competent response. And we saw, of course, Senator Abetz and his need to be more careful in his expressions about breast cancer.

These were the Bs: we saw the budget chaos; we saw the concerns for bigots' rights; we saw Senator Brandis's fetish with his books, rather than the important issues of the day; and we saw clumsy expressions around important issues to do with breast cancer. I could go on to the Cs; I could talk about Mr Hockey's understanding about who uses cars; or I could talk about the commentary about who should be a future Senate leader. There have been suggestions, similar to my own musings, that Mathias Cormann is starting to show some signs of interest in Senate procedure. The leadership in this place, in recent times, has been astounding. But there are more serious matters for me to address. It is good to see that Senator Smith has arrived for his lengthy contribution to this debate, although I must say I am saddened that his will be the only government contribution to this debate. This government has chosen to hide yet again. They have put their full 20 minutes on to Senator Smith. I hope you are up to that burden—

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

I am honoured.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian people have lived with the threatened repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for far too long. It is time to bring this issue to a head once and for all. The Labor Party's position on 18C is crystal clear. The Labor Party introduced 18C and the Labor Party will fight to retain it. We have campaigned in the streets to protect 18C and we will vote in this parliament to oppose any attempt to weaken the vital protections it contains against the scourge of racist hate speech.

We in the Labor Party believe that 18C is a critical element of Australia's anti-discrimination framework, which has served this country well for 20 years. What does that tell us about our leadership today? This is an area where we have had general community consensus for 20 years until we got the Abbott government. Section 18C strengthens the rich fabric of Australia's successful multicultural community, and we cannot afford to risk this. Section 18C appropriately balances freedom of speech with the right of all Australians to live in dignity and free from bigotry —no rights for bigots—and the destructive, divisive effects of racially-motivated hate speech. This is our position, and we are proud of it. We have never waivered on it and we never will. Almost two decades of experience have unequivocally demonstrated that this is the right policy for Australia.

The Labor Party is not alone in its support for 18C. In recent months thousands of Australians have rallied behind 18C to affirm their support for tolerance and social cohesion and voiced their opposition to bigotry and hatred. These voices have been heard in the parliament and have powerfully resonated at the highest levels of government. Public opinion polls and, embarrassingly, even statistics released by Senator Brandis's own department clearly show that the vast majority of Australians strongly oppose any moves to water down protections against racist hate speech. The Labor Party's position, as I have said, is crystal clear and the mood of the Australian people is beyond doubt. But, unfortunately, the Liberal Party's position is much more questionable. It is murky, indeed. Senator Brandis and then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott promised Andrew Bolt they would repeal 18C in 2011, after he was found guilty of offending, insulting, humiliating and intimidating 'fair-skinned aborigines'.

After coming to government, Senator Brandis published an exposure draft of what I will call his 'bigots' charter'. But even at this early stage, the Liberal Party's position on 18C was in flux. Media reports revealed that Senator Brandis had been rolled by his Cabinet colleagues, who had doubts about the wisdom of repealing 18C. These reports exposed Senator Brandis's original intentions. We learnt that he originally intended to ram legislation through the parliament without even a hint of public consultation. Embarrassingly, he was smacked down by Cabinet and forced to first publish an exposure draft to gauge the extent of community anger—and, boy, have we seen that.

The concern is, though, that Mr Abbott has now decided that that level of community anger cannot be borne at the same time as the level of community anger over the budget. He has described the issues around 18C as having become 'a complication', but the issues involved in 18C are much more than a complication. The Senate and the Australian public at large deserve more respect than that. Mr Abbott tries to close down one front while he deals with the issues around the budget—a weakened government could ill afford further conflict such as the furious reaction that has occurred to the budget. But the Prime Minister has not ruled out proceeding with plans to repeal 18C in the future, if the political environment becomes more favourable. Australians who hoped to have closure on this shameful episode in political history are set to be disappointed. That disappointment has transformed into renewed fear and anger after a group of senators, including the Attorney-General's Liberal Party colleague, Senator Bernardi—who we are not hearing from today—announced that he would soon sponsor a private bill to resurrect plans to weaken 18C in favour of their belief in a right to be bigots. (Time expired)

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

I am delighted to have the honour to speak to this particular motion, even though I disagree with it. At the outset I think that—and I think this is a test for future speakers—if the issue is as important to us as many think it is, irrespective of the various positions we come to, then it should be a debate about the issue and we should refrain from the temptation to weave into it a whole range of other issues that are just distractions.

I would have liked to have seen the government maintain its commitment to pursuing a public discussion around the merits of amending section 18C. That was not to be, but I think it demonstrates two things. The first is that, even though my opinion did not take hold or have sway, the government did listen to the opinions of others. I think, in the first instance, that deserves proper consideration. The second is that we should understand more accurately the word 'complication' in its proper context. If the government made a decision that national security interests were best advanced in the absence of other political debates then—even though I might disagree with it, with the limited knowledge that I might have about our national security threats at present—I accept that. The challenge in government is that sometimes you cannot do all the things you want to do at the same time. Sometimes some policies and issues have to take precedence over others.

We should be calm about the decision that was taken. It does not mean that the debate will go away; it does mean that perhaps people might frame the debate differently in the future. All I can talk about is the experience I had over the last few months speaking about this particular issue to a variety of groups across the community. I was surprised by the level and depth of conviction with which people who had a different view to me prosecuted that view. I thank those people who came to my office here in Canberra, in Perth and across Western Australia to express their point of view. In the debate, important elements of the government's compromise were not well understood. For example, the introduction of a Commonwealth racial vilification mechanism was not understood. I think the mechanism would have been a powerful and positive contribution to our laws, in the same way that I think the removal of some other elements of section 18C would also have been a positive development on our nation's pathway to greater freedom of speech and expression. That was not to be. It does not mean that the debate has ended. It does not mean that we cannot continue to discuss the merits or otherwise of this particular law in the context of our changing community.

I am an Australian optimist. I am confident that Australians can be the best that they can be. It is good to see Senator Peris here. I remember an exchange we had during a take note of answers debate some months ago. Senator Peris talked personally about her experience, and I stood up in this place and I said, 'I don't understand. I don't have the experience that Senator Peris has. I have had my own experiences. I have had my own challenges. But I want us to be the best that we can be.' Bringing unfortunate thoughts and ill-considered statements out of the darkness into the community provides a much better outcome over the longer term. But that was not to be. That is where we are up to. I think it is important that the community continue to debate the merits or otherwise of reform to section 18C. As I said, I am an Australian optimist. I think Australians can be the best they can be. I think when ill-considered, hurtful thoughts are brought out into the open, Australians respond well by challenging those ideas and thoughts.

Some senators may be familiar with the case of Nilson Dos Santos which came to prominence just last week. Mr Dos Santos, a Brazilian born gentleman seeking employment as a barista in Sydney, was refused a job at the Forbes and Burton Cafe in Darlinghurst in Sydney's inner east. According to media reports, Mr Dos Santos was refused a job by the cafe owner, Mr Stephen Hu. Apparently the reason given to Mr Dos Santos was that the cafe's customers 'would not want coffee made by black people.' It was most interesting that when Mr Hu was contacted by the media to investigate the claim, he did not deny making the remark. Unbelievably, he tried to justify it, at least initially going on to claim:

… I think the clients here want local people, not African people.

He also told one media outlet:

… I think the coffee culture is more about white people.

Adding a further twist to this to my mind bizarre and unacceptable story, Mr Hu is himself an immigrant to Australia, so his claim is as illogical as it is offensive. But that is not the issue. Once the case was reported, the public reaction was swift and decisive. There was a case of out-and-out racism pure and simple. It is a great pity that this kind of thing is still happening in contemporary Australia, but nonetheless it has happened and I do not doubt that it will happen again. The incident represents the very worst elements in our society, however what happened next represents the very best and goes to my point about the need for ideas and commentary that we find ill-considered and offensive to be better put in light than kept in the darkness.

Media reports today indicate that the Forbes and Burton cafe in Darlinghurst is now closed—not open, not vibrant; it is now closed. Whether that is temporary or permanent is yet to emerge, but the appalling racial remarks of the business owner would appear to have cost him his business. I think that is an important point. The cafe doors are closed today, not because the government closed them—there are no police in the doorway; there was no ministerial directive; there was no court order. The Forbes and Burton cafe is closed this afternoon because when its customers—Australians—heard what had happened to Mr Dos Santos, they boycotted the cafe. When they heard about it, Australians made a judgement as to whether these things were acceptable or not—and changed their behaviour in a way that penalised the action. When previously loyal, local customers heard about what had happened, they voted with their feet.

This is what I have said is the right way in which to engage the public discussion that has taken place this year around section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section of the act is not needed, to my mind, because its continued presence on the statute books suggests that we in this place have little faith—have no faith—in the fundamental decency of our fellow Australians. I come to this discussion from a simple starting position, which is that Australians are fundamentally decent and possessed of tremendous common sense which, when called upon and when required, they use with great grace and dignity. Australians know racism when they see it or hear it. They know bigotry, or homophobia, or hatred. But, as I said previously, if I am in a room with a racist, or a homophobe, or a bigot, I want to know about it; I do not want it to be hidden from me. And I hope that I, and others, when confronted with that, will rise to the challenge to call it out—not to accept it, not to excuse it, not to politely ignore it, but to call it out. I want those racists, homophobes and bigots to air their views—so that their views can be exposed for the unenlightened, misguided, unthinking, hurtful objects that they are. The best way to move forward and the best way to have a prosperous free country is to trust Australians with their freedoms.

As we have seen in the case of Mr Dos Santos—who I understand has received more than 20 offers of employment in the past week—where racism and intolerance exist, the community can step up to the challenge. Those in our community can take action and censor the racists themselves—they can censor the racists with their own actions. Australians do not need the heavy hand of the state to tell them right from wrong. My problem with section 18C in its present form is that that is what it suggests they do. Part of living in a free and democratic society involves hearing things that we might disagree with, or that we might find offensive. For example, when I hear Labor MPs accuse the government of wanting to 'give the green light to racism'—which was the shadow Attorney-General's contribution to the earlier debate on section 18C—I was disappointed by that. I was offended by that. No government in this country would ever want to do that. And I challenge those people, both inside this place and outside it, who really think that the motivations of those people who support reform are because they are racist.

I hold some pretty fundamental disagreements with those opposite. But I do not ever for a moment believe that my opponents' views are evil. I just believe that, on many issues, they are wrong. And like me, over time they might change their views on issues—as I, no doubt, will change my view on issues. It is pleasing, however, that one of the new Labor voices in this place, Senator Bullock, shares views similar to mine and others. In his first speech to the Senate last night, Senator Bullock said the following:

The politically correct place tolerance on a pedestal among virtues but hold that it requires that all sincerely held views—provided that they are not politically incorrect—be held to be equally valid with respect to the holder of them. This is not tolerance but rather a flawed doctrine of moral equivalence. To be tolerant of your views I do not need to pretend that you are just as right as I am but rather to accept that you have a perfect right to hold a view I believe to be wrong, even if I find your view offensive.

Senator Bullock has hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. It is a pity that those of his colleagues who brought this motion appear not to have listened to his contribution. I disagree with Senator Bullock on a great many issues—although I was pleased to hear his reference to the constitutional monarchy in his maiden speech—but I also respect his right to hold his views—to hold them vigorously and to articulate them well; but nonetheless to hold them. And when I disagree with them, I will say so, and point out why he is wrong—and I expect others to say so, and point out why they think he might be wrong. That is the way this parliament is supposed to work, this is the way the parliament often works, and it is the way that our society is supposed to work. Section 18C was a great test for our parliament. For me—who has been in this place only a short while—it was an early demonstration of how, sometimes, very important and necessary debates can find themselves unfortunately hijacked by the politics of the day. But the section 18C debate is not going to go away. To lock ourselves into this idea that there is no better way to deal with these issues is to limit us as a parliament; to limit us as a community; and to limit Australian progress.

My great hope is that Australia will be free of scurrilous, unenlightened, misinformed comments—free not because people are scared to make those comments but free because we as a community actively challenge them. How many times have people in this place seen or heard something and, rather than stand up and say, 'Excuse me, I do not find that acceptable'—to challenge it in the light—have politely turned the other way or looked down? That is us failing ourselves; it is us failing our freedoms. We can do much better as a country. I do not think we need this type of legislation in its current form to guarantee that freedom. I do think that we can, instead, look beyond ourselves and have debates about these issues, knowing comfortably that Australians will, can and often do rise to the challenge of being a harmonious nation.

It is disappointing that the debate has gone. I accept the reasons for the debate having now passed us, but I have no doubt the debate will come back again in a different form. I do not doubt for a second that it might come back in a form in which it finds support because some of the rough edges of the original proposal have been cut off and that we can find agreement and progress with some common ground around some amendments that reflect the country we want to be but also provide some of those protections to those who feel a little more vulnerable, who are not yet convinced that we can be the best we can be.

I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill. I do not agree with the motion; I think we can do better. We should always be open to the idea of reform, and I suspect that in coming months in this chamber, this Senate—and I hope in this parliament—the Australian community will again have an opportunity to debate this issue in another form.

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

This issue has been characterised as a debate between freedom of speech on one hand and the heavy hand of regulation and government censorship on the other. We hear a lot about freedom in this place. We hear constant references to 'the nanny state'. We hear about the curtailment of individual liberties and freedoms. But it has become increasingly clear to me over time that the debate we have about freedom is often couched in very narrow terms. In fact, what we have just heard from the coalition is a very narrow interpretation of freedom, and indeed one that is not shared by the Australian community. This is not just about freedom of speech. It is about the freedom of a young Muslim family to travel on a train without being racially vilified. It is about the freedom of an Aboriginal boy to play football without being insulted on the grounds of race. Freedom is much, much broader than simply being able to express your opinion regardless of the circumstances. It is about freedom to flourish—to grow.

The government does not seem to be concerned about the freedom of individuals who do not want the communication they have with their friends, family, businesses and so on to be under surveillance by the government. The freedom for two people of the same sex to have their love recognised through marriage is an important freedom but one that is ignored. Indeed, what about the freedom of a person in tremendous suffering who wants to be able to choose the way in which they end their life? That is a freedom that does not seem to be important to this government. It appears that freedom is important only when it serves a political agenda. If you have made a promise to your mates at News Corp that you are going to try to kill section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, then freedom is paramount.

The good news here is that the Australian community has made their views very, very clear. In some sense, I welcome the debate we have had. We have seen a response where people have marched, we have seen town hall meetings, we have seen councils right across the country express their views on these changes and on how they see people's freedoms that need to be protected. What it has really done for me is consolidated the view that Australians have a sophisticated view of what freedom is and that sometimes, in order to be able to protect freedom, we need to take collective action. Governments need to pass laws because we recognise that through that collective action we enable individuals to flourish and to grow. That is what freedom is.

The message to the government here is very loud. It has come through very clearly: you have to get out of the echo chamber you are currently in. It is convenient for you at the moment to be in an environment where you are listening to your mates at News Corp or you are listening to the big end of town, where you are getting a very narrow interpretation of what the Australian community believes and wants. And it is why you are in the trouble you are in with your budget at the moment. You have to get out into the community, you have to connect with people, and you have to understand that freedom is a much broader, much more generous concept and one that the Australian community has very clearly expressed a view on. They do not want to be in an environment where their kids are going to be subject to racist taunts, to be vilified on the grounds of the countries of their origin, because they know that is a great threat to their kids' freedom to grow, to flourish and to develop. That is what this debate has done. It has consolidated that very clear view that government action collectively—when there is a consensus, as there is around section 18C of the racial vilification legislation—is the best protection against intrusions on freedom.

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

I also rise to speak in support of this motion. Thankfully, the proposed ill-conceived changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act now rest where they always truly belonged—and that is on the scrap heap. This is a win for all Australians, regardless of background or culture. However, there is a very real concern that it is only a matter of time before the Abbott government will try once again to weaken protections against racism and bigotry.

That is why today we must affirm our support for section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form. By doing so, we will send a clear message to all Australians that the attempt to water down the Racial Discrimination Act was a huge mistake and should not be repeated. This is about sending a clear message about standing up for what is right. This is about sending clear message to all who have been vilified that we in this house stand with you, not against you. To do otherwise would only confirm that there is still life left in the watering down of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Let me be absolutely clear on this: the weakening of our discrimination laws was never a good idea. The changes should never have been proposed. This was an insult to all Australians. People around the country felt shocked, people were hurt and people were ashamed. These proposed changes were completely unacceptable to Australians the very moment George Brandis admitted right here in the Senate chamber—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Peris! You will refer to senators by their correct titles.

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

The Attorney-General admitted right here in the Senate that the government were about protecting the rights of bigots. Well, hundreds of thousands of Australians disagreed with that. I believe no-one has a right to be a bigot. I will also take this opportunity to congratulate the thousands of Australians and hundreds of organisations who rose up to speak against these changes. People power has worked. Your voices have been heard in this win for tolerance and respect.

We do ourselves a total disservice if we as elected senators do not take the time to reflect on what message this sent to young Australians at a time when we are trying to stop bullying. What lessons do our children learn when they hear our country's first law officer standing up for bigots? It is not a lesson I would have thought we in this house would be proud to promote. Once again, for the record, let me state that I am not against free speech—not at all. I am against promoting hate speech, which is what these proposed changes were about. As a new senator in this chamber, I am extremely disappointed that we even had to have the debate in the first place.

I remain concerned that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have not ruled out reintroducing these changes sometime in the future. Senator Smith also made the suggestion that these changes could be reintroduced. I thought about his comment when he talked about bringing racism into the light. The reality is that, when you have been vilified and attacked racially, you remain in the dark. It is very difficult to get out of the dark. This law protects those people.

You do not have to be Indigenous or from one of the many international cultures that make Australia so fantastic to be appalled by what has transpired in this house. You do not have to have been personally subjected to racial abuse to understand why the weakening of these laws signalled a green light to racism. You do not have to have been a victim of hate or have been persecuted based on your race to have been offended and hurt by the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act of the Abbott government.

In contrast to this, I recall attempts from the Attorney-General at the time to defend his previous position when 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.

To use this example as a defence signalled that the Attorney-General was drastically incorrect about what these changes would entail. I stand to correct the Attorney-General and say that in this house we do not attack and insult each other every day based on race, religion or cultural heritage.

I implore all of my fellow senators to show their support for section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form as a sign of standing up for all Australians and moving towards a progressive tomorrow. All Australians, especially young Australians, deserve no less, because we all have a right to be free from discrimination.

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

I rise to reaffirm the support of the Australian Greens for Australia's Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in its current form. Over the last year, we have seen this federal government intent on weakening the act and removing restrictions on the damaging things people can say and do to other people on the basis of race. But we have also seen a resolute, united response across the Australian community—in all its diversity—and this wonderful response has now convinced the government to back down for the time being. I see that as a fundamental victory for decency in Australia. The Australian Greens are committed to standing with most Australians to keep this crucial piece of legislation intact.

Practically speaking, the much-debated section 18C provides protection from racially motivated hate speech and action—but, of course, this legislation means a great deal more than that. It is really about the kind of community we want to be. Do we want to be a welcoming and inclusive place that accepts and even celebrates our differences or do we want to be a community that is bigoted and divided? The Greens are clear about the kind of country we want to live in, and racially motivated hate speech and action is simply not a part of it.

The Australian community has been very clear too. Having fought off the government's attempts to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act, the Australian community has sent a loud and clear message. The majority of Australians—in letters, emails, petitions and polling and at events and marches—have said, 'It is not okay to be a bigot in modern-day Australia.'

Over the last year, I have met with people from across Australia who have shown me that the Racial Discrimination Act is not just a matter of words on paper. For many people, it is a living law that protects them from degrading and humiliating hate speech and behaviour, from wounding words that attack the very core of who they are—their heritage and their identity—and sometimes on a regular basis. But as well as providing a means of righting a wrong it serves as an important signal from this parliament that this behaviour is not acceptable. Watering down our protections against racially motivated hate speech sends a damaging message to the community—and indeed to the world—that this kind of hate speech is acceptable in Australia. It is not.

While Attorney-General Brandis says we all have the right to be bigots, the rest of the community is making it clear that the Attorney-General does not speak for us. We do not appreciate the government's moves to support and protect conservative commentators like Andrew Bolt and his offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating remarks, as they were characterised by a Federal Court judge. I am not sure the Attorney-General expected such a significant public outcry. I am pretty sure he underestimated the way in which the Australian public values the Racial Discrimination Act and the protection it provides for all Australians—no matter who they are or where they have come from. But after receiving more than 5,000 submissions about the changes, most of which would have opposed them, I am sure the Attorney-General now has a better sense of how important this legislation is to so many Australians. I know I have been encouraged by the strength and depth of the community's response to the proposed changes. But we must remain vigilant.

Despite the government's backdown at this point, there are still those who will continue to push for a weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act, including Senator Cory Bernardi, Andrew Bolt, Tim Wilson, the Institute of Public Affairs and the hugely discredited, holocaust-denying Fredrick Toben. New ALP Senator Joe Bullock showed support for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act in his first speech, yesterday. According to media reports this morning, Senator Bullock would

… support lifting the ban on offending, insulting or humiliating people on racial grounds—if given the opportunity.

He may have that opportunity. South Australian Family First Senator Bob Day has vowed to revive the plan in a private senator's bill.

Today I implore every member of this parliament to treat decisions about the Racial Discrimination Act with a great deal of care—for our constituents, for the broader community, for cohesion and inclusivity and for the kind of country we want to be. We must always be asking the question: what kind of country we want to be? The vast majority of decent Australians have shown that they want to live in a country that is better than bigotry.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start with a quote:

… tolerance is displayed in upholding the right of people to express views with which I disagree. A tolerant society is one prepared to uphold the precious right of free speech, provided such speech does not intimidate or incite the injury of others.

No, it is not JFK, not LBJ, not even FDR but our very own senator from Western Australia JWB—Joseph Warrington Bullock. I could not have said it better myself. I agree that no-one should be obnoxious, that no-one should be rude or insulting or offensive, but should these things be outlawed?

The Australian people own our language, not us. A few moments ago, Senator Smith gave us a real-world example of how things should work, proving the Australian people are the umpires of what is and what is not acceptable. The Australian people have delegated to us the responsibility to protect them from harm, from intimidation and from incitement to hatred, which can cause others, mobs, to inflict harm—and rightly so. They have not, however, delegated to us the right to decide who should or should not be offended. Regulating for what is essentially the hurt feelings of a reader or a hearer is altogether different to racial vilification and incitement to hatred, which is not in contention. It is not our role to regulate free speech; it is society's.

Freedom of speech is not some niche issue; it is an essential foundation of democracy. I have noticed that Edmund Burke gets quoted a lot in this place. One of the things Mr Burke said was: 'It is the duty of parliamentarians to teach the public that which they do not know.' Removing words like 'offend' and 'insult' from the Racial Discrimination Act is not hate speech. It is not incitement to hatred. Those new Australians who have escaped tyranny and settled here should celebrate the freedom they have to express themselves without being hauled off to court. I would urge senators who have constituents who do not fully understand these things to explain it to them. Teach them that which they do not know. Tell them that they may have found themselves in court in their former country for insulting or offending someone but that will not happen to them here.

Earlier this month we commemorated 100 years since the commencement of World War I—the Great War. We heard many times of the sacrifice of those who died in the cause of freedom. I did not come to Canberra to defend free speech. I came to help every family to get a job and own a home, but sometimes when you are on a journey something happens along the way that requires you to stop what you are doing and lend a hand. This is one of those occasions. The Racial Discrimination Act cannot be left as it is. It contains a flaw which must be corrected. The words 'offend' and 'insult' must be removed.

I started with a quote from a great Labor figure. Let me conclude with a quote from a great Liberal figure, none other than the founder of the Liberal Party himself, Robert Menzies:

… if truth is to emerge and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate - the untrammelled clash of opinion - must go on.

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

I speak on this urgency motion in the hope that this whole sad and sorry saga of politicising race relations in Australia has come to an end. Earlier this month the Abbott government faced up to the reality of its own political incompetence when the Prime Minister, over-ruling his Attorney-General on the latter's signature policy—and one that Senator Brandis had promised to his backers in the Institute of Public Affairs that he would bring through if elected—backed away from introducing changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. This was an abandonment of a reckless and ill-conceived election promise to gut federal protections against racist hate speech that are contained in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

These protections have supported and underpinned Australia's multicultural society for more than two decades. The defence of these important protections, and the government backflip on their proposal, was a major victory for people power—for the communities that had organised and spoke up against this assault on the harmony of the nation's diverse cultures. Those community organisations were many and varied. There were groups such as the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the Arab Council Australia, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Chinese Australian Forum, the Australian Hellenic Council, the Korean Society of Sydney, the Armenian National Committee of Australia, the Law Council, the Human Rights Commission—it goes on and on.

In announcing the policy backflip, and over-ruling the blundering Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, the Prime Minister indicated that his government was reversing course because its proposed green light to bigotry was a needless complication in the government's relationship with the Australian Muslim community. The question remains: has this arrogant government abandoned its promise to give the green light to racist hate speech in Australia, because it has listened to the vast majority of Australians and now realises that their policy was very much recklessly irresponsible, and a destructive one? Is it because of that, or has the government only reluctantly retreated for the time being from its ideologically blinkered promise, because it realised its charter for bigots was exacting too high a political price on a government that is already the most unpopular in living memory?

Let us take a moment to reflect. On 24 March this year, the Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, shocked the Australian public by stepping in to defend the rights of bigots, and backing this with major changes to our laws against racial hate speech. 'People do have the right to be bigots, you know,' he told the Senate. The opposition to such a radical tear in Australia's multicultural fabric came from all over Australia, but, our course, included rumblings from within his own side, from his own backbenchers—the member for Hasluck, the member for Reid and even Senator Seselja, as well as from Liberal leaders, such as the then New South Wales Liberal premier, Barry O'Farrell, and is successor, Premier Mike Baird.

To declare that the rights of bigots are more important than the rights of minorities—minorities who suffer race hate speech on a daily basis in this country—is simply wrong. While more than 150 community groups came out against the legislation, not one pledged their support for it. Instead, Senator Brandis had to look elsewhere to find support. He looked to fringe groups, like the Institute of Public Affairs, and to the man to whom he owed the greatest debt, and to whom he had promised a legislative change in the first place, the well-known right-wing commentator Andrew Bolt. Even further out was the support he received from the notorious holocaust denier, Frederick Tobin, and the Adelaide Institute.

Senator Brandis had gone so far to the right that even the Prime Minister had to intervene. And what did Senator Brandis say at that moment of backflip when the Prime Minister made a leadership call? He said, 'Well, you know what this business is like. You win a few, you lose a few.' Well, what has Senator Brandis won? He has won nothing in his entire time as Attorney-General. He has won nothing and lost a lot. He has lost a lot of respect. He has lost a lot of credibility, so much so that the Prime Minister himself had to reign him in.

Let's not forget the attempts that Senator Brandis made when he was trying to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. He made an attack on a very highly credible, highly regarded senior counsel, in Arthur Moses, when Mr Moses provided advice to then premier Barry O'Farrell on these proposed changes—advising that they certainly were not something the premier should support. Then, there was Senator Brandis's phone call appointment of the new 'Freedom Commissioner', Tim Wilson, who was appointed to help him with his cause to repeal section 18C. Then, of course, there was Senator Brandis's attempt during Senate estimates to silence entirely the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, from being able to speak on this issue. Well, now what we have seen is Prime Minister Abbott outlining:

I don't want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.

That was his remark, because of his new counter-terrorism proposals that he wanted support for from the Muslim community. It was okay for the Prime Minister to put our national unity at risk before. It was okay to divide Australians, to give freedom to bigots and to take away the rights of victims of racial abuse. But now that he wants to get his counter-terrorism proposals through, he wants national unity. Now national unity is all of a sudden important to him. When all of a sudden the Prime Minister wants the Muslim community onside, the government backflips on these draconian racial discrimination laws.

What does this mean, then, for the future? The question still remains, and I put it to Senator Brandis: what is it that you want to say to people that is not in the current legislation that you cannot say now? That is really the fundamental question here when it comes to the attempts by this government to make these changes. What is it that you want to say to Aboriginal people in this country that you cannot say under the freedom provisions currently in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act? What is it that you want to say to me that you cannot say now under our current racial discrimination laws and the freedom provisions provided within them? Why have you seen it to be so necessary to politicise race relations in this country?

There has been a flawed consultation process in the government trying to make these changes and bring them forward. Nevertheless, that did not stop the community from putting in 5,000 submissions or more, the majority of which were against the changes. The people have won out here with this backflip. The people have won out and our laws remain, which is a good thing for Australia. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.