Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight    to speak on the subject of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I believe that freedom of speech is, and always will be, the defining characteristic of democracy. A society where citizens are able to speak freely, both publicly and privately, without fear or favour, is a truly democratic one. In Australia we are incredibly lucky to have such a society, because, as we know, this is by no means the status quo around the world. We, on this side of the chamber, have traditionally been the custodians of the principle of freedom of speech, and it is a record of which I am incredibly proud.

In On Liberty, JS Mills writes that the principle of freedom of speech is incredibly important, almost as important as the concept of liberty of thought. Mills believed that in a democracy there should be 'absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological'. Freedom of speech is democracy. Like Mills, I consider the principle of freedom of speech to be fundamental. It is important to our nation and to our citizens but also to the world.

I have watched with interest the recent developments in Queensland and Tasmania concerning freedom of speech. Tasmania's draft changes to the state's Anti-Discrimination Act were announced in late August. These proposed amendments would make it illegal to offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule on the basis of—and there is quite a list—race, age, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender, gender identity, intersex, marital status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status, family responsibilities and disability. There has been a great deal of debate around these proposed amendments, particularly around whether they go too far and whether they unduly stifle freedom of speech. I think this debate will continue for some time. But debate is good. Debate is a good thing.

I spoke yesterday, in my first speech, about the wisdom of crowds. Diverse groups of people with diverse opinions bring different views, different perspectives and different values to the table. They make better decisions together. They make better, more effective and more encompassing decisions than groups who share similar views. We are all aware that there are many differing views in Australian society on 18C, and it is undeniably an important issue. Reflective of society as we are, among my colleagues there are also different views on 18C. Some believe that 18C should remain as it currently stands. Others believe that the terms 'offend' and 'insult' should be removed. Some believe that section 18D, which lists the exemptions to 18C, is a sufficient counterbalance. Others believe that the 'reasonable person' test should be applied to both 18C and 18D. These are all differing views—all valid—and I believe they should all be debated, for the best result of that debate will reflect the wisdom of crowds.

I strongly believe that freedom of speech should be applied in debating the principle of freedom of speech. The regulation of free speech is a dangerous act. It is much easier to regulate something than to deregulate it. You cannot regulate what people think, as much as some covet the ability to do so. But I fully understand the government's position on this matter. The government recognises the diverse range of community views on 18C, and it welcomes reasonable and legitimate debate on all sides of this issue. The government has also made it clear that it has no plans to bring forward amendments to 18C. There are other things to be done. There are pressing, urgent issues that must be addressed.

I thank the chamber for allowing me to speak freely on a matter of such importance. I am reminded of the often-misquoted words: 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Senate adjourned at 19:06