Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Dodson today relating to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

As others today have noted, this is not my first speech. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 came into effect just over 40 years ago. The legislation has been one important pillar of our success as a multicultural and diverse nation, where people of many cultures have come to this country and built our national success—both our physical and our social infrastructure.

This law was made in response to an agreed international consensus in the form of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The convention is included in section 7 of the Racial Discrimination Act, which gives approval to the ratification of the convention, and appears as a schedule of the act.

It is important legislation. It was, I understand, our first national human rights law, and it has given each of us as Australians some sense of assurance that under the law every Australian can be treated fairly, regardless of our colour or background. It signalled a point of maturity for us as a good global citizen. This law is of special importance to those of us who, because of our colour, our culture and our language, have been subjected to racial slurs or racial violence and to discrimination when we have sought a place at a school, at a job, at the local supermarket, to rent a house or to enter a cinema.

It has helped us in our collective task of nation-building. In 1975, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said that the Racial Discrimination Act would help to 'entrench new attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and minds of the people'. It can be said that the act has done so for the nation as a whole and for those who have sought to escape the scourges of racism and racist speech.

We now see rejuvenated attempts to repeal section 18C of this important but quite succinct act, which makes it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' someone because of their race. But in response we have seen widespread community support for the legislation as it exists. The vast majority recognise that we should not give people the social licence to inflict racial bigotry onto others. The proposed repeal of section 18C was rightly abandoned by the Turnbull government. It puzzles me that government members here have reawakened this supposedly dead debate. The Prime Minister indicated that it was not a national priority at this stage. He should now be unequivocal in his opposition to this proposal, and get his house in order.

But the protection of legislation that prevents discrimination is a national priority for those of us who are opposed to discrimination, to violence and to hate speech in all its multiheaded forms. It shapes our nation, showing that we are committed in our society to mutual respect and to racial tolerance. We know that this act is there not just to protect all Australians from discrimination but to build and maintain our harmony as a modern, tolerant cosmopolitan community—a national community built from many nations and many cultures, with a growing sense of our common humanity.

We know, especially those of us with lived experience of racism, that racism at the end of the day is about power and hurt. My late friend David Ervine was an Irish politician and good friend who hosted me at Stormont, in Belfast. He was a militant unionist who became a champion for tolerance. In a speech he gave while visiting Australia he said, 'I can smell racism. It does not grow wild in the field. It is tended in a window box.'

It can be seen clearly in the colonial history of Western Australia that a misguided sense of moral and social superiority historically legitimated the prolonged and violent dispossession of people. But the colonial notion of racial superiority was just an ideological mask for greed. It placed a small fig leaf— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Congratulations to Senator Dodson on what is not his 'first speech' but it is his first speech! It was obviously a thoughtful contribution to the chamber. But if I could suggest to the senator it is important that in speeches to the chamber he actually is factual in some of the things he says. Can I assure Senator Dodson—and I think I can say this on behalf of almost every Australian—that every Australian abhors racial discrimination or any other form of discrimination. That is a given in our country of Australia. It is what makes us all so proud to be Australians. But the comments that the senator mentioned are simply not accurate.

First of all, can I repeat the response of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to Senator Dodson's question, and that is that as far as the government is concerned this is not a priority and it will not be introduced by the government. That is the government's official line and I make it clear at the start of my contribution that that is what the executive government has a view of.

Having said that, as an individual member of the coalition government and a proud member of the Liberal Party and Liberal National Party of Queensland I have the right in this parliament to exercise not only my view on what is correct or not correct but also to represent the views of my constituents, who are the people of Queensland. I am again fairly confident in saying that most people in Queensland, whilst abhorring any form of discrimination, particularly racial discrimination, are offended and insulted by the fact that these words 'offend' and 'insult' are in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Senator Dodson said that the proposal was to delete the paragraph or to amend it to remove two other words. This is plainly incorrect. We are not proposing to remove from 18C the words 'humiliate' and 'intimidate'. So I proudly am one of those on our side, as an individual member of this parliament, not directed by my party and not directed by the government, who choose to support this private member's bill to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to remove the words 'offend' and 'insult'. The words 'humiliate' and 'intimidate' will remain and should remain. But when Australians have to legislate against offence and insult, I think it is a sad day for a country as free and open as Australia.

Most Australians who understand what happened at the Queensland University of Technology, in a celebrated case that is still before the courts, will appreciate how absolutely awful this legislation is that it would cause those young students, who, on anyone's standard, could not possibly have offended or insulted anyone, to be hauled before the courts under the provisions of this particular piece of legislation. The fact that the Human Rights Commission, which I almost think at times is poorly named, is taking that particular case on with the gusto that it is really brings into question the relevance and the approach of the Human Rights Commission.

Now, I repeat that I and most other Australians—and certainly all of those on this side of the chamber—abhor any form of discrimination, racial or otherwise. But removing the words 'offend' and 'insult' from section 18C is, I think, a step in the right direction and ensures that Australia is a free, open country that abhors and rejects any form of discrimination but encourages and celebrates free speech and the ability to say things that some others might not like. If 'offence' and 'insult' were an offence in this chamber, Senator Cameron, for some of the things that he says to me, would be out on his ear, and I would be a quivering mess. But we put up with those things in Australia— (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Brandis. It is incredibly important and quite reasonable that those of us on this side of the chamber should be seeking reassurance from the government that they have no intention of amending the Racial Discrimination Act. I find it quite extraordinary that all but one of the Liberal-National coalition backbenchers in this place have in fact signed up to support Senator Bernardi's private member's bill. This is an extraordinary act to be taking place that goes completely against the government's stated agenda.

Indeed, the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, appears to continue to change his mind on this issue. We know that in early 2015, before he became Prime Minister, he said that he was not opposed to changes that would water down protections in 18C. Indeed, the Prime Minister said he was comfortable with the amendments and did not think they would cause any harm. It was only when he became leader that he ruled out making any changes.

So, yes, I am pleased that Senator Brandis was able to give such an unequivocal 'no' this afternoon, given that so many of the others on his side of the chamber are not of this view. So many of those on whom you rely to govern, be they in your own party or others you look to to pass legislation in this place, are also of this view. I look forward to Senator Brandis saying, 'No, no, no', every time this question comes up, because, given the level of activity and momentum around this question that is gathering from those on the other side, we will need to keep seeking those reassurances.

I think there is a real question before this place as to whether we can indeed trust the Prime Minister or Senator Brandis on this issue. It is clear from events of recent days that there is no cohesion in the coalition on this issue. When we see the entire backbench—almost, bar one—signing up to radical changes to 18C, it is clear that the Prime Minister has no control over his own government. So how are the people of our nation supposed to trust a government that cannot even agree internally on fundamental questions of protecting the minorities in our own community?

Much like the Prime Minister, I am concerned that Senator Brandis himself has had contradictory views on this matter. His views, which have been stated loud and clear in the past, are that he believes people do have a right to be bigots. Make no mistake: we on this side of the chamber will keep this issue on the table and keep holding the government to account. We know that there are those of you on that side of chamber who want to create rights for bigots in this country who think it is reasonable to expose Australians to racist and insulting acts. This, in my view, is an extraordinary thing. It seems pretty clear to me that those on the other side would not ever have been exposed to such racist attacks, because they do not have the same diversity on their side of the chamber.

Today in this place, even though the coalition has had their agenda of wanting to see 18C amended rejected many times by the Australian people and even though Tony Abbott also recognised the folly of amending 18C, we continue to see this issue bubble away on the other side. On that basis it is critical that this side of the chamber keeps holding them to account. We do not want to see amendments to 18C, and we will keep asking those questions in this place. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is arguable whether it was the French philosopher Voltaire who made the comment—from the French translation to English it is even more obscure—but the words were along the lines of: I disagree with you on what you say but I will die to defend your right to say it. In this place, of all places in Australia, we must surely be free to be able to debate without fear or favour.

I recall once, when I was on the other side, Senator Wong reminding me that the whole question of 'take note' relates directly to taking note, and, with deep respect, I say to my good colleague Senator Dodson: the motion was to take note of what Senator Brandis said. It is not for me to correct him, except to say that, whilst I was particularly interested in the content of what he had to say, he was not in fact speaking to the motion, which was to take note of the leader of the government's comments.

Can I also draw, with respect, Senator Dodson to his statement that this effort is to repeal section 18C. With respect, it is not; it is to amend 18C, to leave in terms related to 'intimidate, humiliate or vilify', but simply to remove the words 'offend or insult'. Surely in a country in which we pride ourselves for our freedom of speech, we must feel free for people to make comments which might in fact be insulting or offensive to another.

As Senator Macdonald correctly said, probably Senator Cameron and I over the years have offended and insulted each other on many occasions. But it allows me to make the point that one cannot predict whether or not a statement is likely to insult or be offensive. The point was made in this place a few minutes ago with the Queensland University of Technology incident that has exercised the minds of so many recently, when three young people went up to a computer lab and were told that it was a laboratory to be used only by Indigenous students. One of those students subsequently put, I think, on social media—Facebook—words to the effect of, 'I didn't know I wasn't able to enter that laboratory'.

We know that the young person who was the attendant in that laboratory must have taken offence or felt insulted, because she came out and said so, and we know that Professor Triggs has subsequently taken action against that student. It simply makes the point that you cannot predict whether a person is likely to be insulted or offended. But I do join with Senator Macdonald in his comments, and I join with Senator Brandis on the statements he has made on many occasions in this place when same-sex marriage has been debated—the fact that it is illegal in this country to discriminate against another person.

But I am going to give you an example where an offence and an insult took place against myself. I was in mass in Applecross, and the priest in his homily gave, as part of a joke, a comment about a blind mouse and a blind snake. I will not tell you the details of it except to say that it was about politicians. It was something on which I took deep offence—you can imagine it was the analogy of the snake—but I have no right to feel insulted or offended by the comments or to actually bring an action in the court against that priest.

What I did do was go up to him and do two things. I suggested, firstly, he finds out who is in his congregation—and, secondly, the fact that I was not happy with that event. I only use that analogy because I do not want to belittle in any way the comments made by Senator Dodson except to say that 'insult' and 'offend' do not have a place in 18C, because he could not predict the likely effect on me as a result of his comments.

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

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Brandis to Senator Dodson's questions relating to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. In doing so, I have to say I am completely perplexed. Yesterday was the opening of parliament, and the best that the Liberal backbench could run around and do was to get enough signatures on a motion by Senator Bernardi, to ensure that they could introduce legislation to amend our Racial Discrimination Act and, in doing so, water down the protections provided to ethnic communities across Australia.

Now, how on earth are they representing their constituency? This is a multicultural country. Every part of our community has people from different ethnic backgrounds living amongst us. It makes us such a diverse and strong society that we are so proud of living in. And yet, including my own Tasmanian senators—the Liberal senators Senator Bushby, Senator Duniam, Senator Abetz—were all part of leading that charge of signing on to that motion, rather than of course standing up to the issues and interests important to the people of Tasmania. They were completely ignoring the people of Tasmania and putting their extremist views within the Liberal Party and ahead of their own constituents.

I asked Senator Bushby and I asked Senator Abetz and I asked Senator Duniam: 'What is it that you want to say to those ethnic communities in your electorate in Tasmania that you currently cannot say under the current Racial Discrimination Act?' Answer me that question, because I cannot understand where you are coming from if it is not from the basis of racism and of bigotry. You have questions to answer if you are going to sign your name onto a motion to water down race-hate protections.

Quite rightly, Senator Brandis abandoned the government's attempts to water down or change section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in 2014, and for good reason. We remember at the time—and I will remind Senator Brandis of the response to the changes the government wanted to make from a number of ethnic communities. For example, Kirstie Parker the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, said:

We are horrified to consider the kind of Australia that could grow out of what is now being proposed.

We know intimately the impact that racist abuse has on our peoples. It undermines our sense of personal security and safety, can disenfranchise us even further from the rest of society, and literally makes us sick.

That is just one response from the time in which the government tried to water down the protections provided in this particular piece of law.

As Senator Dodson said, we should not give people the social licence to show bigotry to others. That is exactly what a few backbenchers within the Liberal Party are trying to do in bringing forward this motion. I also ask the Prime Minister: what are you doing? Who is leading this country? Is it led by you, or is it led by the backbench of the Liberal Party? Is it led by the extreme right-wing backbench of the Liberal Party? Why will he not rein in Cory Bernardi? Why will he not rein in the senators who have come to sign this motion and who are getting away with the open rebellion that they are displaying within the Liberal Party? There is division going on within the Liberal Party. It seems to me—and I think it seems to many in the public—that the coalition backbench are determining government policy instead of the leadership or the executive of the government. I think that is something that the Australian people should really question.

I have never understood why it is that so many people in the Liberal Party think it so important to be able to insult and offend other Australians on the basis of their race and their ethnicity. Why is it okay, and why are you so fixated on wanting to offend and insult other people on the basis of their race? Is it something that you have ever experienced, because I have the feeling you do not know what you are talking about. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.