David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Day, move:

That the Senate notes the Turnbull Government's failure to uphold free speech.

Treasurer Scott Morrison is currently having tax troubles with unicorns. What he means is that some of Labor's tax proposals are mythical, just like a unicorn. But what fits the definition of a unicorn even more appropriately is principled support for free speech in this parliament. It is entirely mythical. In fact, based on my experience since I was sworn in, it appears I am the only senator to consistently and without exception defend freedom of speech.

A position held across the political spectrum in the US by everyone from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, and widely held in the United Kingdom by Conservative and Labour politicians, is in Australia represented by a single minor party senator—me. I have had people tell me that classical liberalism has no natural constituency in Australia. Of course, I hope they are wrong, but if they are right, we are confronted by a parliament that explicitly rejects a core part of the Western liberal tradition. That core part is freedom of speech, but freedom of speech not subjected to peculiar conditions, like notions of 'hate speech' or defamation laws that do little more than create a lawyers picnic. I do not want free speech to be a unicorn.

It is obvious the government only believes in freedom of speech in theory. Before the last election, Tony Abbott gave a commitment to modify section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the provision used against Andrew Bolt. I was in the audience when he made that undertaking. He said:

The Coalition will repeal section 18C in its current form.

It won’t just be the current—

Gillard—

government that the debate over new restrictions on free speech will test. It will be all the commentators and organisations that have ever thundered in defence of free speech but find their indignation highly selective …

Mr Abbott also quoted Robert Menzies in a way that now makes his conservative predecessor seem like a regular Voltaire:

As Sir Robert Menzies declared …“The whole essence of freedom (of speech) is that it is freedom for others as well as (for) ourselves … Most of us have no instinct at all to preserve the right of the other fellow to think what he likes about our beliefs and to say what he likes about our opinions… (But) 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”.

Somehow, things have moved from a promise to repeal 18C, to reneging on that promise, to the passage of vast swathes of legislation further undermining freedom of speech.

In the first national security bill, section 35P introduced harsh penalties for journalists who report on ASIO's special intelligence operations, even when they report historical misconduct. At the time, I warned repeatedly about the danger this provision posed to investigative journalism and the chilling effect it would have on freedom of speech. I told journalists over and over that their ability to do their job was at risk. But not until the bill became law did it dawn on them, and a few others, that I might be right. I was vindicated entirely when Roger Gyles QC, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, delivered his report on this, where he said:

It creates uncertainty as to what may be published about the activities of ASIO without fear of prosecution. The so-called chilling effect of that uncertainty is exacerbated because it also applies in relation to disclosures made to editors for the purpose of discussion before publication.

He then pointed out that:

… the application in this manner of broad secrecy prohibitions to outsiders is not satisfactorily justified, including by precedents in Australia or elsewhere.

So, after telling me I was wrong during the debate in this chamber, the government has in effect conceded it was wrong and is now amending this obnoxious piece of legislation. They could have done that in 2014, when I first spoke up about it. I suppose I am only a member of that pesky crossbench, so I can be ignored.

The follow-up 'foreign fighters' legislation criminalised reporting on certain police searches and 'advocating terrorism'. It also defined 'advocating' in the broadest terms. In this context, it is worth remembering that the crime of 'advocating terrorism' and the 'insult or offend' provision in 18C, which is a civil wrong, are both premised on the assumption that hearing certain words will make people go out and do something vile. The problem is, these laws only serve to outlaw words that do not motivate bad deeds, because words that actually do motivate criminal acts are already dealt with through existing laws against incitement. When I pointed this out during debates on the bills, Senator Brandis argued that the problem with incitement is that it is hard to prove. Well, isn't that the point? Otherwise people could be banged up for saying anything, really!

However, while it is well known that incitement—if proximate in time to an incident of racial violence—may have a causal effect, there is no evidence that offence and insult enjoy such a relationship. Indeed, what evidence we have flows in the opposite direction. The belief that 'insult' and 'offence' lead to racist violence has a sibling under the skin: the assertion that playing violent video games causes violent behaviour, coupled with the belief that watching pornography leads to rape. Both claims are untrue. Playing too much World of Warcraft may dent one's bank balance and watching too much porn may damage one's relationships. However, in study after study researchers have found that playing violent video games and watching lots of porn are correlated with reduced rates of violence and sexual assault.

And when it comes to hate speech laws, apart from being unsupported by anything approaching evidence, these have serious unintended consequences. Last year, UK polling firm YouGov surveyed British attitudes to Muslims, and discovered that Britons see Islam negatively but are unwilling to say so. In other words, governments and law enforcement have to rely on anonymised polls conducted by private firms to find out what people really think. It is attitudes that matter, not speech, and yet the law is aimed at what people say.

Labor's approach is no better. It always opposed changing 18C and gave supine support for the government's national security laws. Labor also supported mandatory data retention. Yet, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, both Labor and the coalition loudly proclaimed their free speech credentials. The Greens are better in parts. They opposed the national security legislation and also opposed data retention. However, they passionately support 18C and are in favour of 'hate speech' laws generally.

It is not feasible to maintain partial freedom of speech in the long run. The fact that most Western countries now do makes our remaining freedom still harder to defend. Interest groups that might claim to support free speech but argue for exceptions to address their particular concerns cannot help but notice the inconsistencies. Only by insisting on free speech from a position of principle can this special pleading be resisted. For my part, I have not only opposed every one of these impositions on free speech but I co-sponsored Senator Day's bill to remove 'insult' or 'offend' from 18C.

The blanket bans on reporting special intelligence operations and various police searches, combined with data retention, prevents the media, bloggers and commenters from reporting without fear or favour and reduces government transparency. What all this means is that free speech is defended in some situations—when the speech is agreeable, linked to privacy, or relevant to a certain political constituency—but not others. It amounts to not supporting free speech at all. To make an old joke, selective support for freedom of speech is like being partly pregnant.

Shutting down speech by claiming you are offended or that something should not be said, or inhibiting speech by criminalising journalism, is an admission of failure to understand the whole concept of free speech. And if you do not understand free speech, you do not understand freedom. Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make governments and people uncomfortable, but if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.

I compromise on certain issues on the basis that some progress in the direction of liberty is better than none. But I believe all politicians in a liberal democracy should be uncompromising in defence of free speech. Free speech should not be a unicorn.

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

I am pleased to participate in this debate this afternoon as I am always happy to participate in discussions surrounding freedom of speech in Australia. It is a subject that is of singular importance to me, just as I understand it is of singular importance to the two senators who have brought this motion forward this afternoon. I remain, of course, a co-sponsor of the bill that Senator Day and Senator Leyonhjelm still have before the Senate to make changes to the Racial Discrimination Act to remove the words 'offend' and 'insult' from section 18 C. However, at the outset I do have to take issue with the wording of this particular motion, which charges the government with a failure to uphold free speech. I am not sure that charge can be sustained, though I will of course listen to the contributions of others this afternoon. But I would simply point out that the gravest threats to free speech in Australia, certainly in legislative terms over recent years, have tended come from elsewhere in this parliament. The Labor Party, with the notable exception of my WA colleague Senator Bullock, remain implacably opposed to any changes to section 18C. Of course they refuse to debate the subject in any meaningful fashion, preferring instead to send the usual brigade of hysterics into this chamber to screech the term 'racist' at anyone who has the temerity to question whether the present law is operating in a fair and effective manner.

Of course it was not the Minister for Communications in this government who jetted off to New York to boast that he was possessed of unfettered legal power to silence people or indeed to force executives to wear red underpants on their head. That, we recall, was Labor's minister, Senator Conroy—someone who was no friend of freedom of speech in that role. Remember his attempts, which mercifully failed, to in effect censor the internet through the Rudd government's proposal to introduce an internet filter. More disturbingly, recall his attempts as part of the Gillard Labor government to establish the public interest media advocate. This would have involved the regulation of newspapers, effectively meaning the government would determine whether or not the publication of particular material was in the public interest. I recollect that some said the scheme sounded positively Orwellian, and I suppose there are overtures of that in Labor's proposal. At the time it reminded me of a writer, someone with whom the two senators who bring this motion forward today are no doubt very familiar. In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith writes of an order of men, which it would have been in his day, that works assiduously to beat back threats to established powers. Adam Smith says:

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Of course of those words do not apply exclusively to Senator Conroy—they are watchwords for all time—but they elegantly summarise exactly what the former Labor government was up to when it made its botched attempt to regulate the content of newspapers in our country. They told us their intentions were good. Labor representatives variously tried to claim they were protecting diversity in the media, protecting privacy or trying to civilise the tone of our public discourse. That latter argument, of course, is one we also heard from Labor to support its continued opposition to reforming section 18C. I recall Senator Cameron's creative argument at one point that the phone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom was evidence of why the proposed public interest media advocate was needed in our country, which was a novel approach given that there was no evidence whatsoever that what had gone on in the United Kingdom was occurring here in our own country. But that is always the problem with the Australian Labor Party. They think intentions matter more than outcomes and that attitudes inform their approach to a whole raft of policy measures. Thankfully that particular measure failed and Senator Conroy moved on.

I will be very frank on the subject of free speech. I am disappointed with the pace of this debate in relation to section 18C. I am sure that does not come as a complete surprise, given my long-stated position on the subject and my co-sponsorship of the bill of Senator Day and Senator Leyonhjelm. But I am not in the least bit discouraged. I think we are heading the right way, even if we are travelling too slowly from my own perspective. I certainly do not accept any assertion that the government has failed to uphold freedom of speech. It was Victor Hugo who wrote that 'an invasion of armies can be resisted; an invasion of ideas cannot be resisted.' More than 160 years ago, after Victor Hugo committed that thought to paper, it should serve as a continuing inspiration for those of us determined to strengthen Australia's protection of its citizens' right to free speech by reforming section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Although it is true the fight has suffered some significant setbacks in the last 12 months, I remain an optimist. At first blush that attitude may seem incongruous with the prevailing political reality, yet my continued positivity is sustained by the knowledge that the supporters of reform have in our possession that most prized of political commodities—the commodity of momentum. If there is an enduring lesson to be gleaned from history, surely it is that a powerful idea can and will triumph over time and triumph over even the loudest of dissenting voices. This has been amply demonstrated by the course of economic policy over recent decades, which despite the occasional delay or regression has moved inexorably in the direction of freer markets. When the likes of Bert Kelly and John Hyde were parliamentarians during the halcyon days of Keynesian economics, their efforts to dismantle Australia's protectionist tariff wall and discourage fiscal profligacy by governments of both political persuasions were not universally applauded or appreciated. Indeed, they were sometimes portrayed as zealots, even by those within their own party. Yet they held fast at considerable political and personal cost because they were convinced that what they proposed was in the best interests of the economy and therefore in the best interests of Australia. Had they not pursued their objective and instead submitted to the prevailing wisdom of the time, how likely is it that the Hawke Labor government, supported by the then opposition, would have pursued pro-market reforms in the 1980s? Would Australia today be assigning free trade agreements with some of the world's largest economies and our most significant trading partners, as this government has done through the excellent work of the former Minister for Trade, Mr Andrew Robb. Would an agreement such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement enjoy such a widespread support?

The widespread acceptance of free trade as an economic virtue might seem inevitable today, but that was not necessarily the case 40 years ago. Likewise, consider the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax—an idea that had been pursued by economists and policy experts for decades but had enjoyed rather less support amongst the bulk of the political class. John Howard as Treasurer was convinced of the merits of such reform, yet found himself stymied by a lack of political support from his then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, who considered it very bad politics.

Howard's successor as Treasurer, Paul Keating, became equally convinced of the merits of a consumption tax and almost succeeded in pushing it through until, of course, the rug was pulled out from him by his Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, who also feared the potential political blowback. The defeat of the then Liberal leader, John Hewson, at the supposedly unlosable 1993 election on the back of an anti-GST campaign by Labor seemingly put paid to any prospect of meaningful tax reform in Australia for a generation.

Yet just five years later, Prime Minister John Howard secured an electoral victory, albeit narrowly, on the explicit undertaking to introduce a goods and services tax. What happened in the course of those five years? It is not as though the idea of the consumption tax suddenly became popular or even that it was necessarily better understood by the electorate. Rather, over the years, even throughout what seemed to be endless delays and defeats, the momentum for reform built. Even if the idea itself was not a popular one, Australians came to accept the need for reform in the interest of their families' and their nation's economic wellbeing.

Although the examples provided above relate to economic policy, I believe the principle is just as applicable to the reform of section 18C and strengthening the protections of freedom of speech in Australia. The evidence is clear. When Senator Day introduced his private senator's bill in 2014, my decision to be a co-sponsor was perceived by some as risky. In fact, there were only two Liberal senators to act as co-sponsors, yet in the little over a year that has elapsed since we have seen more and more Liberal senators come out in support of Senator Day's proposal to remove the words 'offend' and 'insult' from the provisions of section 18C.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Nationals

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

And, indeed, Nationals—thank you very much, Senator Canavan—joining with Liberals and Senator Day and Senator Leyonhjelm. In fact, there are now 13 senators—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith will ignore the interjections.

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

In Canberra I am a very strong coalitionist. In Western Australia I am a very strong Liberal. In fact, there are now 13 senators on the record in support of reforming section 18C, including one from the Labor Party. That is nearly one-fifth of the chamber for a bill that, officially, does not have the backing of the of either major party. Why is this the case? I believe it goes back to the sentiments expressed by Victor Hugo: the opponents of reform may shriek loudly, but their sound and fury is not enough to overpower an idea whose time has come.

It has been an instructive experience to sit in the Senate on those occasions when reform of section 18C has been debated and to listen to the opponents of the reform mount their arguments. Generally speaking, their opposition is based around three flawed approaches. The first is that supporters of reform wish to give the green light to race hate speech. That idea is so patently ridiculous that, frankly, it does not deserve the dignity of a response. The opposition's next tactic is to highlight various contemporary examples of racist statements or behaviour and suggest that reform of 18C will simply encourage such acts. The Cronulla riots are generally included near the top of the list of examples. Again, this arguments is self-defeating. Section 18C in its present form was on the statute books for a decade before the Cronulla riots occurred. It manifestly did nothing to prevent them. Those that were charged as a result of the riots were charged under various criminal statutes and not the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. Those riots, which were ugly and unacceptable, proved the point. If someone is so irrational, so filled with prejudice and hatred, that they engage in the sort of behaviour that encourages the followers of a religion, a political party or some other organisation to physically attack or otherwise degrade those of a different view, I am not sure why people think two words in a piece of legislation are going to stop them.

The final strategy was to try and paint reform as an obsession of right-wing ideologues who are out of step with mainstream thinking. This actually is a very important and critical point. The problem here is that advocates for reform of section 18C do not hail exclusively from the right of the political spectrum. It is hard to affix the label of 'right-wing zealot' to the Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Robert French, who noted in 2004 that the words 'offend' and 'insult' were a long way removed from the mischief that the Racial Discrimination Act was intended to address. It would probably come as a surprise and as news to activist lawyer Julian Burnside QC that he is an irredeemable conservative ideologue, yet he too has said:

The mere fact that you insult or offend someone probably should not, of itself, give rise to legal liability.

Sarah Joseph, the director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University has noted that, Feelings of offence and insult are not serious enough to justify restrictions on the human right tofreedom of speech …

There are other prominent Australians who would self-identify as being on the left or at least not being on the right of politics who have backed reform, among them David Maher, Jonathan Holmes and The Age newspaper. There are a good many eloquent words spoken on this subject right across the political divide. Some of my favourites come from 1994, when the original parliamentary debate on the introduction of what is now known as section 18C was occurring. They are worth repeating today:

… under this bill all that is necessary to create a civil offence is for someone to feel offended, insulted or humiliated. In other words, all that is necessary to create a civil offence under this bill is for someone to have hurt feelings.

  …   …   …

… the best argument against bad taste is not to make it illegal. What we need to combat racism is argument, not censorship; we need exposure, not suppression.

The speaker in that instance was the member for Warringah, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Indeed, the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has expressed support for the aims of what is contained in Senator Day and Senator Leyonhjelm's bill. In May of last year, the now Prime Minister said that the proposal to remove the words 'offended' and 'insult' from 18C is:

… broadly supported and I was very comfortable about that, I didn't think that would have any negative impact.

Earlier in my contribution I mentioned my fellow Western Australian colleague, Labor's Senator Joe Bullock, as also being someone inclined to support reform in this area. Indeed, Senator Bullock used his first contribution in this place to underscore that point when he told us in his first speech:

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.

Plainly, this issue is not one that can be couched in traditional left-versus-right terms. Attempts to do so are disingenuous.

However fervently the opponents of reform in the Australian Labor Party and elsewhere may wish this debate would go away, the plain fact is that it will not. The momentum for change is undoubtedly building, even if the pace is slower than some of us would like. Fundamentally, the parliament faces a pretty simple choice. That choice relates to how we view those we are sent here to represent. Either we trust in the basic decency and fundamental fairness of Australians or we do not. Either we believe that Australians are mature and intelligent enough to know racism and bigotry when they see it, and dismiss it, or we believe that Australians are helpless, unthinking rubes who need the government to protect them from things they find distasteful.

Clearly, many senators opposite take a very dim view of those they are supposed to represent. They seem to believe that there is a pervasive culture of racism in our country, that the air crackles with bigotry and that the only thing stopping it are two words in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. That is a view I reject. I think it is a view most Australians would reject. I believe Australians are fundamentally decent, open and tolerant. We can have disagreements on issues but in a respectful way. If passionate public debate on occasion gives rise to hurt feelings, my view is that that is a small price to pay for the privilege of living in a free society.

In closing my contribution today, I would again say that I disagree with the premise of the motion before us. The government has done much to uphold freedom of speech and I am confident that in time, and with the support of this parliament, it will be able to do more.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before this chamber is very, very broad in scope. I commend Senator Leyonhjelm for his broad and thoughtful speech, which ranged across a wide range of policy areas and pieces of legislation, although I think he will be unsurprised to hear that in so doing I do reserve to my right to disagree with him quiet vehemently in some respects.

Inevitably, the topic leads us back to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I listened carefully to Senator Smith and his contribution. I will acknowledge that that is a more measured contribution than the general tone of this debate over the last couple of years. I note his pessimism about progress. I am not entirely sure that I disagree with him, because in fact I would not be surprised if those who are advocating for 18C got what they want.

Let us think about where our Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, is at the moment on those policy positions he has held so dear for so long. He has already betrayed the moderates in his party on marriage quality, he has already betrayed the moderates in his party on climate change, he has failed to deliver the sensible mature economic debate he promised, he has failed to end the policy on the run and, most recently, he is walking away from protecting vulnerable teens from bullying in schools. I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister completes his transformation into a reincarnation of former Prime Minister Abbott by reintroducing the legislation that will restore the right to be a bigot: the amendments to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

This motion wants to call out the government for its failure to uphold freedom of speech. I want to call out the government for a number of other things: for its failure to vocally protect minority and vulnerable communities and its failure to avoid the damaging debate about 18C that saw the Attorney-General of this country—no less than the Attorney-General of this country—say out loud, in a public form, that you have the right to be a bigot and then to continue to stand by that statement. In so doing, I believe that it give the government's imprimatur to racist epithets—those epithets that are hurled from passing cars at Muslim women who have the temerity to wear head scarves or at Indian workers who are just doing their jobs

But I want to go more broadly to the impacts of 18C and to its context in the overall arrangements for freedom of speech in this country, because we need to be very clear. 18C is not the first burden on free speech, nor is it the biggest burden. There is the classic example of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. We do have laws that prohibit speech which incites others to violence. But it is not just where safety is concerned that we limit free speech. Political communication is recognised as a special, protected expression of free speech and has been recognised as such by our High Court.

Yet even here in the parliament, this place for politics and political communication, there are constraints on how we conduct ourselves. We do need to refrain from using offensive words or offensive language—or at least we do need to do so in relation to one another. We will have to wait until Monday to see if we may use offensive words and offensive language in other contexts. Standing order 193 provides that:

A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer …

I will just explain that this provision underpins the maintenance of comity between houses of parliament, through the nation and between the legislative and judicial branches of government. This is a restriction on free speech, certainly, but it is one that we accept because it underpins the kind of political society, and the nature of political debate and political communication, that we see as being fundamental to a civilised and democratic society.

There is the question of offensive language in public, another area where we do not allow out citizens to give free range to their worst instincts. It is a crime to use offensive language in a public place. In New South Wales last year 12,000 people were convicted of breaching criminal summary offence provisions concerning offensive language. Merely using a profanity in public can be enough to see you convicted of such a provision. And of course a very significant area where we seek to restrict speech is given effect by the laws of defamation. For those who enjoy fine dining, there was a classic, and one has to say somewhat entertaining, defamation case a few years ago. A Sydney Morning Herald food critic reviewed a particular restaurant and described a chicken dish as 'outstandingly dull', using the somewhat entertaining language preferred by journalists, quite understandably. They used very evocative language to savage the restaurant. On that occasion the court awarded $600,000 in damages.

So it is wrong to say that these provisions that exist in the Racial Discrimination Act are unique in their effect of limiting free speech. It is a principle that is embedded in a range of ways in different laws which seek to protect a range of characteristics of the society we live in. The Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, quite rightly said:

To those who would say that hate speech regulation in particular places unduly excessive restrictions on speech, I say this: if we can accept that politicians must refrain from using offensive language, if we accept that you can be convicted for using offensive language in a public place as a criminal offence, if we accept that you may be liable to pay out $600,000 for saying you didn't like a chicken dish, then it is only right that people are also held accountable for those acts which involve racially abusing and vilifying another person in public.

Just because a policy burdens freedom of speech, that does not in and of itself make it illegitimate. I support freedom of speech, but it is not an absolute right, and in this regard I differ specifically from Senator Leyonhjelm. This right to freedom of speech has to be balanced against the rights that others have.

The basis of a civilised, democratic society is in balancing the competing rights that our citizens have against one another to improve the common welfare of all. There is no right that is absolute, and nor should there be. Every right has the capacity to impact on the lives of others and in so doing to impinge on others' rights. Think about our right collectively to security and safety versus the right to freedom of association. Both of these things are important and both are things we seek to balance in framing our criminal laws. Similarly, think about the right to freedom of movement versus the right to secure enjoyment of one's property. We seek to balance those through a series of property laws that manage the ability of people to move around the landscape that we all share and yet allow people, whether they are renting or owning, to have secure enjoyment of their own home. In a similar way, the right to freedom of speech is balanced against the right to be free from discrimination and vilification.

For some parts of our community and for some political actors in particular, freedom of speech appears to be a singularly important issue—more important than any of these other rights—but there is no real basis for this. The right to freedom of speech is not inherently more important than other rights. I want to quote again from Dr Soutphommasane, who I will say has made a very significant contribution and a significant intellectual contribution to the way that we might think about these things. Back in 2014, he said:

Those who advocated for a repeal of the [Racial Discrimination Act's] provisions on racial vilification have argued that freedom of speech is paramount in our society. This proposition does not sit very well with the human rights approach for one very simple reason: human rights are indivisible and they are interdependent in character. That is to say, there is no hierarchy when it concerns freedoms. You can't simply assert one freedom and say that it is the most important one, because how we enjoy one freedom can often depend on how we enjoy other freedoms. For example, whether we can exercise freedom of conscience is purely academic if we do not enjoy security.

He went on to say, 'These sorts of nuances aren't always reflected in our debate.' And he concluded by saying, 'But they are absolutely essential in ensuring that we get the right national conversation.'

There are some in our national conversation who seek to prioritise the 'traditional' rights of the classical liberal position over rights that have been recognised more recently. And I do note that Senator Smith's contribution, which as I said earlier was very thoughtful, drew heavily on those thinkers and writers from the classical tradition. And I acknowledge how very important they are to the political tradition that we inherit as participants in this chamber. However, there have been very significant developments in the way that we think about rights—rights have been recognised since that time. While the classical liberals were focused on property, on speech and on the rights to vote, we have recently acknowledged that a healthy life within a healthy society actually also requires the right to be free from discrimination, the right to have access to health care and the right to education.

I would make the point that this prioritisation of classical liberalism's priorities over more recent concepts and ideas is quite flawed in that it ignores the historical development of the idea of rights. Classical rights themselves were not respected since time immemorial. They themselves were products of social change. They themselves were once new ideas that were bitterly and fiercely resisted in the societies in which they emerged. A static view of rights that is frozen in the early 1800s ignores the capacity of societies to change and for us to develop more sensitive and sensible frameworks for the fundamental aspects of someone's civic, economic and personal life that society is willing to protect as a right.

It is wrong to say that a right like freedom of speech is superior simply because it has an older provenance than the right to be free from discrimination and vilification. If this were true, it would have been equally true to say to JS Mill and the proponents of liberalism that the Crown's right to be free from insult was superior to the new ideas of freedom of speech. These are things that will need to be balanced against one another in a sensible national conversation, and to simply prioritise one right over all others is not a tenable basis for a sensible policy outcome.

I want to change direction and say that the burden placed on freedom of speech by section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is a proportionate and reasonable one. It says that anything that is 'reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' on the grounds of race is unlawful. The courts have chosen to apply this very narrowly. It is in fact not enough to say that you have been offended, insulted or humiliated on racial grounds. In fact, the courts have sought to test it against an objective measure and have said that it must involve an act that causes serious and profound effects.

It is also true that there are limited consequences if you are convicted under these provisions. It is not a criminal provision. You cannot be convicted or thrown in jail. These provisions merely entitle someone to make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. And the dispute resolution process that is thus triggered emphasises conciliation, education and apology rather than sanctions.

Ultimately, when we are assessing legislation of this kind, we need to weigh up the importance of the rights being protected against the importance of the rights that are being infringed. It is clear why it is important to create a society without racial hatred or vilification. The type of society we want to live in is one that is cohesive and harmonious and in itself will support a robust public debate, but that cannot take place if it is undermined by the corrosive effects of racism and racial discrimination.

Despite the assertions from others in the debate, it is also the case that condoning verbal racial abuse creates a culture of acceptance that can lead to further expressions of racial hatred such as discrimination, physical violence and ostracism. There is in fact a significant body of evidence that indicates that the outcomes for people who are subject to racial discrimination and abuse are worse than they are for the rest of the population. This is particularly the case for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia, where the evidence demonstrates that there is a very strong link between being subjected to racial abuse on a regular basis and poorer health outcomes, whether that is physical health or mental health. This evidence cannot be ignored when we are trying to have a conversation in the abstract about the nature of freedom of speech. It needs to be balanced against the very real outcomes for those who experience racism in their day-to-day lives.

In concluding, I will ask the question that I asked the last time that we came to this chamber to discuss this issue. Why is it so important to allow people to offend or insult people of other backgrounds? Why is this issue so continuously on the public agenda? Why is it brought, time and time again, into this chamber? What are the situations where people have had a legitimate and important public debate fouled because of the provisions in this act? I asked that question last time, and I still have not heard a credible answer. What is the harm that is actually being done by this legislation when compared with the benefits that it currently provides to those who may find themselves subjected to racial discrimination and racial abuse?

I think the reason that we have not had an answer is that the answer is, 'Never.' There is no legitimate debate, no important debate, that is being stopped by these provisions. The speech that is stopped by 18C is not productive. It never is. That act simply prevents racist and insulting statements, and it prevents speech that is on the margins—hateful, hurtful speech. Speech like this poisons the well of public debate. It does not just do harm to its immediate targets; it harms us all. It leaves us to deal with a public discourse that is fractious and corrosive and ultimately will drive us apart.

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

Senator McAllister concluded her speech by asking: why is it so important to remove these sections? Let me tell the honourable senator and others why. Free speech is the hallmark of truly diverse and mature societies. There is no greater threat to the stability of Australia than the silencing of free speech. And, if the government truly cared about free speech, it would want to reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I will say a little more about that later.

If the government truly cared about free speech, it would move swiftly to protect free speech for churches, for example, that wish to advise their parishioners and schools what their church's teaching is. If the government truly cared about free speech, it would respond strongly to the attacks from the Human Rights Commissioner on the Australian Christian Lobby, who have, rightly, called out the toxic environment in the marriage debate that will result in people who have been exercising free speech being hauled before tribunals.

If the government truly cared about free speech, it would be moving more quickly and more decisively about the so-called Safe Schools program. It would see that the term 'safe' is a dead giveaway, a blink moment, when everything you need to know about something is there in the blink of an eye—or, to use a biblical term, a shibboleth. It is a dead giveaway. So-called Safe Schools has nothing to do with prevention of harm and bullying but everything to do with cultivating the Australian version of the bizarre movement in American university campuses called 'safe spaces'.

The so-called Safe Schools program is about creating state run places—schools, universities and anywhere else reliant on public funding—where anyone can pretend to be whatever they want to be, despite the evidence to the contrary, and, in some cases of children, against the wishes of their parents. The Safe Schools program is antiparent. It was first claimed it was an opt-in program but now we know that in primary schools and high schools parents are not being consulted and children are being exposed to ideas contrary to the values of their families. It smacks of the intolerant seizing state apparatus to drive their view of the world, the latest orthodoxy, down the throats of children without their parents' knowledge. North Korea gets schoolchildren to tip off teachers, and thereby the state, that their parents have a Bible in their home. Be very wary of those intolerant of different views when they start invading schools.

When our freedom of expression is restricted, everyone suffers. Some will suffer now; others will suffer later. Some may ridicule my ideas today but they could very well be your ideas tomorrow. Therein lies the rub. There is no end to the crusade against free speech. Only a few months ago Germaine Greer was 'no platformed' by a British university. The student union pressured the administration to cancel her appearance, writing:

Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women.

While debate in a university should be encouraged, hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous.

The absurdity of Greer, a champion of radical feminism, referred to as a misogynist beggars belief. This would have been unthinkable until very recently. Although I may disagree with her views, to call them 'dangerous' and 'hateful' is excessive and manipulative. She has not been intimidating, humiliating or inciting violence. Her crime was simply to disagree with another ideology. It is obviously lost on these self-appointed gatekeepers of tolerance that their position was built upon the very freedom to disagree.

The transgender cause would not have been possible without the help of cultural revolutionaries like Greer. Both then and now the free exchange of ideas affects hearts and minds to bring about change, but will the same opportunity be granted to opponents of these new views? No way. The elites prefer strict speech codes to shield themselves from rational debate. The logic of the opponents of free speech is saturated with irony and hypocrisy.

It is not enough that political correctness has stifled honest debate; now everyday Australians are in fear of being labelled a criminal and sent off to face a tribunal. When we hand over critical, independent thought to state bureaucrats, kangaroo courts and demagogues we are in effect collectively saying: 'Please tell us what to think. Whatever the cultural arbiters decide what "hate speech" means today I will toe the line.'

Those who dissent should look out. Resisting the latest politically correct orthodoxy has become costlier than ever. Not only has the Tasmanian Human Rights Commission dragged an archbishop across the coals; it has declared that all Catholic bishops have a case to answer. Their crime? Distributing a booklet that says marriage is the best environment for raising children. This describes the Catholic position held for millennia. With just one complaint lodged, investigation and mediation were underway. These complaints do not even need to be legally defensible for proceedings to begin. Bear in mind, the complainant bears no legal costs; it is all on the victim of the complaint, however perversely—they are portrayed as the aggressor and the complainant as the victim. It is now considered reasonable state policy to selectively censor Australians by weaponising human rights tribunals.

Tolerance has become a one-way street. Your views will not be tolerated if they do not agree with the latest orthodoxy. Are we not students of history? Don't we know the way things play out in history when free speech is repressed?

If you think freedom of speech is only suffering in these state run kangaroo courts and commissions, think again. The Federal Circuit Court is now hearing another case applying section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. A former university employee is seeking $250,000 in damages from students for Facebook comments that she alleges offended her. We are failing our cherished traditions of instruction through facts, satisfying the curious and transforming open minds. Ideas cannot be fleshed out, iron cannot sharpen iron and satire cannot teach and amuse; no, the debate is supposedly over and we all must submit in fear to threat of legal sanctions.

The concentrated willpower of the elites has spoken. What is more, the would-be paragons of virtue, the preachers of tolerance, are almost always walking into parliaments demanding evidence based policy. Yet in the free speech arena, feelings trump evidence every time. British comedian John Cleese, who is touring the country at the moment, said:

The idea that we have to be protected from any kind of uncomfortable emotion is one I absolutely do not subscribe to.

He is referring to the laws that fellow comedian Rowan Atkinson has also objected to in the United Kingdom, laws that elevate offence above the value of free speech.

People who make complaints to kangaroo courts and tribunals in this environment of weaponised antidiscrimination laws can rely on the high likelihood that these same tribunals will not question whether they were actually offended or whether a reasonable person would be offended in the same circumstances. If a person says they were offended then that is good enough for them. It is a licence for political activists and troublemakers to use these weaponised laws to silence their opponents and to begin turning the screws on the public presence, business and activities of those they disagree with. Their ultimate aim is to drive those who disagree with the latest orthodoxy out of the public realm and, presumably, off to become hermits living in the woods—or worse if history is a guide.

My bill to amend 18C is a small step towards a return to sanity and a barricade against us sliding into a toxic environment that has given us horrific, tragic and regrettable outcomes in history. The intention is simple: keep the words 'humiliate' and 'intimidate', but remove the highly subjective terms 'offend' and 'insult'. We must do it now, before everyday Australians hold their tongues in fear of state reprisals. We must restore power to ideas and convictions, out of the hands of ideologues and their would-be utopias. We must resist all attempts by the state to favour one group's speech over another's. Only when every Australian is free to challenge and be challenged can real change occur. Only then can truth prevail.

What should be a bedrock principle of the so-called Liberal Party has become mired in controversy. Some 14 senators within the coalition have acknowledged the debt we all owe to liberty, and I applaud them for publicly declaring their support for this bill. I am grateful in particular to my bill co-sponsors, some of whom are listed to speak on this motion. I do not mean to denigrate them personally when saying the government has failed to uphold free speech. They, collectively and unfortunately, are lumped in with a government that does not seem willing to act. I do hope they can win the internal argument that sanity and free speech must be restored. The record, though, at this stage, is clear: the government is not yet ready to uphold free speech. It tolerates everyday Australians, from bishops to unemployed university students, being dragged off to tribunals, facing massive legal bills and losing their right to free speech.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Might I say, at the outset of my contribution, that I want to reflect just briefly on the contributions that have been made since I came into the chamber. I thought that Senator Smith's contribution was very well made—a very thoughtful contribution and presented very professionally. I also attach some of my remarks to the contribution made by Senator McAllister, which I also thought was very thoughtful and to the point on this issue. As is the case most of the time, I agree with most of the things that Senator Day has to say—except, of course, that I would reject the initial premise that the actions or omissions of the Turnbull government have contributed to a diminution of free speech in our country.

I have had the good fortune in my life to have travelled very extensively around the world, to every continent, and I have been in and out of about 900 passport controls, in every corner of the earth. I would have to say to this chamber that there is no other place on this planet where I would prefer to live and that has the freedoms, liberties and cultures of this great country of ours here in Australia. Having said that, I note that there is always room for improvement. Senator Day, you have, I think, provided a road map today for some sensible consideration of some issues that will, I think, enhance the issues relating to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is the concept of inherent right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. Speech is not limited to public speaking, and it is generally taken to include other forms of expression. In effect, it is about communication of one's opinion without retaliation from a government of any type, be it federal, state or any other form of grouping that governs our country.

Of course, freedom of speech also comes with enormous responsibilities. My first encounter with having given thought to freedom of speech occurred when I spent a long period of time in the United States in the mid-1980s, when I was attached to the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI. I can remember being involved in critiquing an organisation there called NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. This was a public body. It was a listed company. It had offices in Washington, New York and other places in the United States. It had about 120 staff, and one of its most fundamental objectives in life was to lobby the congress of the United States and various state legislatures to reduce the age of consent from what was then 21, as it was in our country; it is now 16 both here in Australia and overseas. Its argument was that children—and I still regard a 12- or 13-year-old as a child—who were, in effect, in a post-puberty state ought to exercise the right to engage in any sexual activity that they consented to.

This body could not exist, and could not have existed, without the protection of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights for freedom of speech. With freedom of speech come particular responsibilities. I reject, and I will do so a number of times throughout my contribution, any proposition that the Turnbull government or, indeed, this coalition since it has come to power, has failed to take those measures necessary to support the concept of freedom of speech. In fact, during my contribution I will refer to some measures that I believe have made a great contribution to the issue of freedom of speech as we find ourselves in uncertain times, particularly with respect to matters of national security.

But I will focus for a short period of time on Senator McAllister's reference to the fact that there are attacks on freedom of speech even here in this chamber, in this place, during the business conducted by the Senate, and in committee hearings. I have myself been the subject of quite vitriolic intervention as I have pursued issues—for example, before the Human Rights Commission. I find that when I express, in that case, in a Senate hearing—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What—in estimates?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am telling you, Senator Bilyk, that you need to listen up here, because it has come almost entirely from your side and the Greens. The fact of the matter is that you can, on occasions here, express your views through—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't believe it!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen. I have sat here silently throughout the contributions to this important debate, and I expect nothing less from you in return. You are a living example, Senator Bilyk, of how, when people express a view that is not consistent with yours, there are acts of disruption in this place.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, heavens!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we are. I hope Hansard picks it all up. We had a situation recently—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, ignore the interjections.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

where we expressed a view about the Safe Schools program. Again, one would argue that there is freedom of speech involved in this case through publishing certain facts. With respect to that particular program, which is now widely spread amongst our schools, we have seen an attempt to deconstruct some mainstream views that are held. I suppose the question is: are they entitled to do that? I say that when you apply the test of responsibility they fail that test. When you apply the test of responsibility to whether you should expose 12- and 13-year-olds who are going through a confused state of puberty to the material that is published in those documents, whilst one may exercise freedom of speech to publish those things, that test has failed.

Attacks on freedom of speech and attacks on people's rights come in so many forms. It is not just to do with a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs. People are often bullied—we can use that term if you like. People exercising their freedom of speech will attack people for their physical characteristics. I might say, in a light moment, there have been references made about my physical characteristics. But this also occurs with the aged and the disabled. It occurs with people in relation to their socioeconomic circumstances, their educational status, their academic capacity, their sporting prowess and their expressing a view on any subject matter. That is one of the particular problems that we have here within this Senate, within this parliament, within this place, where we are supposed to set an example. Some of the contributions that are made are not very mature. People use freedom of speech to denigrate people about how they dress and their preferred genre of music and literature, and on and on it goes.

For our part, one of the first times freedom of speech was articulated at an international level was with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It said:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whilst that declaration is not legally binding on our nation, we are a signatory to it. It is one that I think our country respects. I know that we apply the provisions of this definition when we consider legislation in this place. Again, I contest the principle behind the subject matter this afternoon, which is that the Turnbull government and, indeed, this coalition since it has come into power, has done nothing about freedom of speech. It is interesting to note that, except for one or two examples, which I will address as I go forward in my contribution, very little evidence has been presented to support the thesis that, somehow, the Turnbull government has failed to support the right of freedom of speech. I will refer to this in the future as 'freedom of responsible speech'.

One of the references has been to national security. When it comes to freedom of speech, there are all sorts of limitations that I think are reasonable and responsible. We see confidentiality provisions in all sorts of legislation—not just about national security but often in relation to law enforcement agencies. There are limitations and—indeed, legislative restrictions—on people having the freedom to speak about some of those issues associated with live investigations or the operations of a court. There is no need for me, I assume, to elaborate on why those restrictions exist. They are fair, they are reasonable, they are considered and they are necessary for the effective operation of, in these cases, courts, law enforcement agencies and indeed all arms of government.

They exist in the area of professional privilege—for example, between a lawyer and their client or between a doctor, other medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist and their patient. In business, there is commercial-in-confidence, where there are limitations on people's freedom to express themselves where they might release confidential information that would damage a corporation or a business entity. There is a tacit confidentiality between students and teachers. There are, you would accept, many, many other limitations, but I for one think that those limitations are reasonable.

Again I make the point that, within the scope of my knowledge, there is nothing this government has done in legislation that would offend the principles that have been set out by the UN declaration and the general definition of 'free speech', not in the time that I have been in this place. In levelling that accusation at the government, you need to look at what action has been taken when the government have been confronted by such issues. For example, as we have restructured some of the framework and architecture around national security agencies over recent months—and of course we are strongly committed to national security agencies—we have paid very serious regard to protecting these rights and liberties that we have. We all know that protection sometimes can challenge rights and liberties. When protection is provided, you may have to surrender a small liberty, or sometimes a large liberty, in exchange. We have all felt that. Those in my age group who travel through airports understand how much things have changed in the last decade or more.

We also put in place a mechanism, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, whose role is to review the operation, effectiveness and implications, importantly, of Australia's counter-terrorism and national security. That monitor makes recommendations to the government—it is independent of government, so the government does not have any capacity to influence its work—and freedom of speech, freedom of movement and all these liberties and freedoms that we have are right at the heart of the monitor's charter. The government has implemented each and every one of the monitor's recommendations in full—each and every one, without qualification, without amendment. They have been introduced by this independent body.

The coalition also commissioned the Australian Law Reform Commission to do a far-reaching review to see whether there is any legislation brought in by us or that we have failed to implement that unreasonably encroaches upon traditional rights, freedoms and privileges—including, of course, freedom of speech. This review is one of the most comprehensive and significant inquiries ever undertaken by the Law Reform Commission—ever. I will not bore the chamber by going through the terms of reference line-by-line, all of the areas they were asked to examine, but I challenge anybody in the Senate to identify any category or area that needed to be looked at that is not there where that constitutes some failure on the part of this government to preserve the right to freedom of speech.

At the end of my contribution, I want to make this point. When a decision of the parliament does not accord with a person's view—and every day we leave this place there has been a decision that might not accord entirely with our view—that does not form a basis for us to argue that somehow our right to speech was so limited, so inhibited, that we were unable to influence this poor decision, or this decision that we did not agree with.

From my broad knowledge of this parliament over many years, even though I am a relatively new participant in it, I really do believe that both sides of the parliament hold the right to free speech very close to their hearts. They understand that it is a fundamental element of a civilised and democratic society. I will not be part of any criticism of any efforts of the Labor Party previously, because I think there are some very decent people in the Labor Party who hold this value way up high—at No. 1, I suspect—on their list of values. All I urge everyone to do is to consider how we conduct ourselves sometimes in this place and that we allow other people to express themselves without being denigrated, because that is a form of suppressing freedom of speech, as Senator Day identified. If people get to a point where they do not feel comfortable expressing themselves any longer in certain forums or in a certain manner, that, I think, would be a fundamental failure on the part of each and every one of us in this place—if we are not prepared to stand up and speak our minds without fear of intimidation, and it comes in so many forms, from colleagues in this place or from pressures from outside this place.

I close as I started. I have spent a lot of time around the world, and this is the finest country. It has the finest freedoms and liberties that I have experienced anywhere on the globe. I am a very proud Australian—I know we all are—and I think we need to seriously think about how we conduct ourselves to ensure that freedom of speech is not only maintained but enhanced. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion this evening. I have listened to most of the speakers this afternoon, if not in here, then in my office. I can certainly say that it is fairly easy to support the first eight of the 12 words—that the Senate notes the Turnbull government's failure—which are the extent of this motion, and then we could insert a whole range of other words after that. But for the purposes of this debate this evening we are focusing on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

It is interesting to listen to some of the speakers who advocate the abolition of section 18C and of watering down the protection against racial vilification. I wonder how many of them have experienced racial discrimination at its core and understood the impact that racial vilification has on an individual and on individual communities across Australia. I wonder if they have, or if they have had contact with people who have. It is perhaps through that learned experience that you realise how important protections like section 18C are.

My understanding of the historical origin of section 18C is that it was founded back in the early nineties under the Keating government and had some links to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Before the Racial Discrimination Act was amended to include this section, there had been extensive reports on and consultations into the impact of racial vilification on various communities. This was not something that just appeared in legislation; it was a response to the lived experience of minority groups within this country—and it has served the test of time.

I listened to Senator McAllister ponder in her speech on where the anxiety about section 18C originates from. Why is it that in the last 2½ years this has become somewhat of an obsession for certain members and senators in this parliament when it has existed for more than 20 years? Section 18C sends a powerful message about the standards that we expect, that every Australian can be treated with respect and, at times, be offered protection under law. I have heard some of the concerns. I think Senator Smith brought up the fact that the people involved in those ugly Cronulla riots were not prosecuted under section 18C but, instead, under the Criminal Code. That is absolutely correct and that is as it should have been. But that does not mean that section 18C is not useful or serves no purpose.

We have laws, which are interrelated and serve a particular purpose, that align together when needed. In this instance, the Racial Discrimination Act sends a very clear message that has served Australians very well. It does offer protection. It does balance freedom of speech. If you look at it, the Racial Discrimination Act already contains very strong protection for freedom of speech. I do not think you will get any stronger defenders of freedom of speech than senators in this place. But we also acknowledge that, at times, people should be afforded protections for particular actions of others.

Section 18C renders conduct unlawful where it is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people on the basis of their race. I grew up with a brother who is of Papua New Guinean descent. He and I grew up together. He is one year younger than me. We went to school together as siblings. We spent a lot of time together. His lived experience of childhood in Australia was quite different to mine, even though we came from the same family. There are times that he has suffered because of his race and racial background and when he has been treated very differently to the sister he has grown up with all his life.

I saw, firsthand, the hurt and the pain that is caused when racism is suffered, and that has certainly influenced the way I think about section 18C. I have had firsthand experience in my family of a person who has a different racial background to mine, but who is my brother in every sense of the word, being treated very differently to me on the basis of his colour and race. He has grown up with laws, which send a very strong message, that that behaviour towards him is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. That, of course, does not stop that behaviour occurring, but it sends a very strong message that we as a country do not accept that people should be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by others on the basis of their race.

Other speakers tonight were saying that there are 14 others who are supporting getting rid of section 18C or the Bob Day bill. I would challenge that and say that there are plenty more in this place and in the other House that do not. Yes, we represent different communities and come from various backgrounds, but I do not think that it is fair to assume that just because there are 14 advocates for this approach that it means it is a good thing, by any measure. We will always have vigorous debates in this place, but, from the feedback I get from the community, which has very strong views about this and protecting section 18C, I think that that is the view of a minority.

Labor will not stand for the watering down of race-hate-speech protections, given they have served our country very well for more than 20 years. Regardless of whether these protections are opposed by the government or in private senators' legislation, these are protections that Labor will vigorously defend.

Debate interrupted.