Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The Prime Minister has on at least 16 occasions ruled out his government amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Today, on Harmony Day, we learned that the Turnbull government is proposing the removal of the words 'insult', 'offend' and 'humiliate' from section 18C. What insulting, offensive or humiliating comments does the Prime Minister think people should be able to say to me?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Might I begin by correcting the premise of your question: the Prime Minister has never, not on 16 occasions and not once, said that the government would never reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. He did say, as was the case at the time, that it was not a priority for the government.

Nevertheless, I think we all know that events have happened in this country in the recent past, in particular, the treatment of the QUT students, which was disgraceful, and the treatment of the late Bill Leak, which was disgraceful. The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Labor senators and members of the House of Representatives continue, proposed beneficial law reform. What the Prime Minister and I announced a short while ago was a strengthening of the antivilification provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.

What you did not mention in your question, which I think is a very important consideration, is the insertion, into section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, of a prohibition against racial harassment. Did you know that in 1991, when the then—

Senator Wong interjecting—

If your leader, Senator Wong, would just control herself, I might be able to address your question. You may or may not know that in 1991 the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! I need quiet on my left and on my right. Senator Cameron on a point of order.

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

On relevance. The question was: 'What insulting, offensive or humiliating comments does the Prime Minister think that people should be able to say to the senator?' That was the question, and he has not gone near it. He should actually take off that Harmony Day badge. It is absolutely crazy that he has that on.

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

On the point of order, the Attorney-General has been giving a detailed response to a detailed question. He is aware of the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1991, when the current part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act was recommended, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission actually recommended to the parliament that one of the grounds of racial vilification should be harassment. That was one of the grounds recommended by the predecessor body of the Human Rights Commission. For some unaccountable reason that was not done by the then Labor government. (Time expired)

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

Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wyatt has twice indicated he would cross the floor to vote against changes to section 18C. What consequences will there be for members of the coalition who vote against the Turnbull government's attempt to water down protections against racism?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am absolutely certain that every member of the coalition will be voting for these changes to strengthen section 18C, every last one of them.

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

Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When asked why the government had no plans to amend section 18C, the Prime Minister said, 'We did not take an 18C amendment proposal to the election.' Why is Prime Minister Turnbull willing to cave in to the Right of his party room on section 18C, while he continues to refuse a free vote on marriage equality, despite the defeat of his proposed plebiscite?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although I am a little loath to dwell on internal politics, may I say that strengthening protections against racial vilification and vindicating freedom of speech are causes that are embraced by all elements of the Liberal Party and the coalition. You may say that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the complaint-handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act are perfect and incapable of reform. You may say that, but if you do you would be alone because there is no serious person in this country who has followed human rights debate who says that section 18C in its current form, which actually omits to prohibit racial harassment, or the complaint-handling procedures of the Human Rights Commission cannot be improved. Certainly, that is what Professor Gillian Triggs has said, and I agree with her. (Time expired)