Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Dastyari and Kitching today relating to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Excitingly, I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Brandis to questions asked by Senators Dastyari and Kitching in question time—if we can remember them. In terms of the process, it was very interesting to hear Senator Brandis talk about the deep commitment the Prime Minister has to ensuring that there is equality in our nation and that people will not be harmed by any changes proposed to the Racial Discrimination Act. It was important that that statement was made in this place. But what is really clear is that that statement needs to be understood and made in the wider community.

Since yesterday, when the proposal to change the Racial Discrimination Act was made public, on the international day to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, we have seen widespread concern about the decision. We expected that there would be a wide range of views on this decision. But those of us who had the honour to be on the human rights committee, which considered over a couple of months the issue of free speech and the Racial Discrimination Act, were taken by surprise at the speed with which the government has now made the decision to implement a change that was not recommended by the committee—if anybody has read that report.

The committee's report is valuable because it is a snapshot of people's opinion on the issue of the Racial Discrimination Act at a point in time. It exposes a wide range of concerns about how we identify free speech in our country. It talks about people's attachment to the proposals that are currently in the act. It talks about issues of administration. Indeed, a number of the recommendations the committee made were on administrative changes to ensure that the act is administered in a more streamlined fashion. We felt that there was a degree of concern and agreement around those administrative changes. One of the absolutely reinforcing processes in that committee was a deep commitment to the concern around making sure our community did not have harm through discrimination on the basis of race. And there was respect for the continuing efforts to ensure, over a number of years, from the time this legislation was originally developed, that exactly how the act would operate came from within the commission itself and also through the legal process. It was reinforcing to see that, in many cases, there was an understanding of exactly what discrimination meant, what caused hurt, what caused offense and what caused harm. That was the core element of the discussions we had over many weeks, in many parts of the country.

There was not genuine, ongoing, complete support for change. There was support for needing to maintain aspects that showed respect on the basis of race throughout our community, but there was not a clamouring for change. There were a number of people who raised issues, and that must be acknowledged. I think it is a good thing that we would take the opportunity to review any legislation, but particularly legislation as sensitive as this.

What we have heard since the Prime Minister put out the cabinet decision to make the change to the act is a deep worry in the community, particularly from those who are concerned about how those with racial differences will be treated by other Australians.

It is important for all of us to stop and think about the people who will be impacted and are impacted by the legislation as it now exists. The voice of any person who feels they have been subjected to racial discrimination should be given special respect because they understand what it is like to feel they have been racially abused. I have not had that experience but, on the committee, I heard from many people who did. The majority of those people—and I say that openly—who felt they had experienced racial abuse or had known people who had been racially abused are deeply concerned about any changes to the legislation. In fact, they would hope that the evidence we receive, which is on record in Hansard, is heard. I hope that senators who are making contributions to this debate will have read that evidence and will know how fearful people are. They are fearful that the act that was designed to protect them and support them will now once again be party to debate in this place and the wider community about ways to change the act—but not necessarily improve it.

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

I think there is an awful lot here that we can agree upon. All Australians have the right to live free from fear of violence and racial discrimination. This we can all agree upon. But the fact is that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is bad legislation. It is bad law and it simply does not work. It has not reduced racial vilification or done what it has set out to do. Instead, it has captured in its web students from the Queensland University of Technology. University is a place where ideas should be contested and people should feel free to say whatever it is they want. All that these students did was question the fairness of an Indigenous-only computer lab, and they did it on social media. This is not harassment in any way, shape or form. Section 18C captured in its web a cartoonist whose sole purpose in life was to satirise. But it did not capture a single participant in violent anti-immigration rallies in Melbourne last November and last June. It did not capture a single participant in the Reclaim Australia rallies in Sydney last July.

The law is not working. The law needs to be amended. I honestly feel that the amendments that have been suggested to both the wording and the process are measured in their response and will make this law more effective. The law was developed with good intentions; Senator Moore is absolutely correct there. It was established to defend the vulnerable, to articulate the principles of a successful multicultural society and to reflect our values of inclusion and acceptance. But it is a bad law that does not achieve its objectives. As legislators it is our responsibility to change laws that do not meet their objectives.

Instead of stopping racial vilification, it actually has the practical effect of making it unlawful to hurt people's feelings. That is such a subjective term. Such a subjective benchmark is impossible to maintain. It is political correctness gone mad. The only sensible course of action is to amend section 18C to direct it towards far more serious conduct.

I feel that the government responded appropriately to this problem. It was the right approach to convene the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. My understanding is that the work that was done by that committee was done respectfully, thoughtfully and very thoroughly. The work on this particularly vexed and contentious issue was done with the best intentions. The report from the committee is highly valued. I also would like to commend my coalition colleagues, the Prime Minister and cabinet for the mature, considered and respectful debate and for the way this bill was developed and delivered.

Let us have a quick look at what changes are made. The bill proposes reforms to the wording of the act as well as reforms to the complaint-handling processes of the AHRC. The current wording clearly lacks credibility. We are removing the highly subjective and emotive words of 'offend, insult and humiliate' and replacing them with the word 'harass', which is a far more powerful word and one which better describes the behaviour we all want to see outlawed. The current language in the Racial Discrimination Act lacks credibility.

It is not lost on me or anyone on this side of the chamber that yesterday was Harmony Day. We are a proud nation of migrants. We are also a nation that values our freedoms. The freedom of speech is fundamental, elemental, to all other freedoms. The changes proposed to the Racial Discrimination Act are not something we should fear but are something we should embrace. This is not a watering down of the law. It creates a clearer, stronger and far more credible law. Most importantly, it is a balanced law that will defend free speech and protect Australians from genuine racial discrimination.

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 the answers given by Senator George Brandis, the Attorney-General. What can I say other than wow? How extraordinary to have this legislation announced on Harmony Day. It is a watering down of the antidiscrimination and antiracism laws that have well served our nation. It is also an incredible example of our dysfunctional and divided government. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have reassured this parliament numerous times that there would be no changes to section 18C. We have here a government that is giving in to not only the far Right wing of the Liberal Party but also to One Nation.

This week a friend of mine, Jesse Fleay, spoke of our Prime Minister and wrote on Facebook:

Imagine spending your entire political career posing as a progressive pinup boy and alternative leader of the Liberal Party only to get the top job and operate as the most conservative leader in Liberal Party history, for the simple reason that will follow Malcolm Turnbull to the tomb for the simple reason that you have no courage to stand up to your own party.

Time and time again we have had the likes of Senator Brandis and our Prime Minister reassuring the Australian nation that they will stand up for decent Australian values and that they will stand up against racism and vilification in our country, only to announce on Harmony Day this dramatic change in the law. This demonstrates that the Australian people cannot trust a word that this government says.

As Senator Dastyari pointed out in his question, on 16 occasions the Prime Minister ruled out changes to the Racial Discrimination Act—16 times. He also pointed out that Peta Credlin said that the most vociferous person in the coalition against 18C was Malcolm Turnbull. I wonder when the PM decided to join the pests seeking changes to 18C. She said, 'I too wonder when the PM decided to join the pests seeking to change it.' But again we see Malcolm Turnbull has changed his mind. Again he and Senator Brandis stood in front of the media and told us of their intentions to water down protections against hate speech in our country.

The incredible thing is—and we have seen Senator Brandis do this numerous times in this place—that he cannot even admit the backflip. There are examples after examples of him not being able to recall something relating to serious issues in this place. We hear this day in and day out. Is it yet another example of Senator Brandis not being up-to-date with what is in the media on any given day? It is simply absurd that time and time again the highest law officer in our nation is not up-to-date with matters in his portfolio and, as we are debating, does not give adequate answers to this place.

I spoke in this chamber some six months ago seeking reassurances from Senator Brandis and from the Prime Minister that they would not give in to the conservative backbench of the Liberal Party and make changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. How desperately badly have we been let down. The fact that they will not stand up for mainstream values is a terrible sign of the dysfunction and division in this government. They will not do things like implement marriage equality. They will not stand up for the current 18C protections. They will not get on with creating jobs and apprenticeships. Instead, they are absolutely besotted by the backroom, right wing— (Time expired)

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

Until about three years ago, I did not even know this law, 18C, existed. It is not something that people pull you up in the street in the country towns and say, 'What are you doing about 18C?'

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree.

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

Honestly, Senator Watt, I had never heard of it until it came forward in relation to your state of Queensland, with Mr Alex Wood and his fellow students at the Queensland University of Technology. What did they do? They went into a laboratory at the university. It is reported that the laboratory was for Indigenous people only. So they left and posted something on Facebook. The next thing was the courts. Ms Prior was suing these students for the sum of $250,000. Alex Wood has been hit for $41,000 in legal fees, four years after Ms Prior told him to leave an Indigenous-only computer lab because he was white. I find this quite amazing, and I am sure many Australians find it quite amazing as well. I thought computer laboratories were for all people—but apparently not. Regardless of where you are from or the colour of your skin, I think laboratories should be for all—and I think many Australians would agree with me.

The issue is these words 'insult or offend'. It is just crazy, because I cannot see why anyone would ever be insulted or offended when they are respected. In this world, in this life, you cannot demand respect; you have to earn respect. If people respect you, they will never insult you or offend you anyway. The legislation is so confusing, even for Ms Triggs, who does not have an understanding of it. The government is proposing to remove those words and replace them with the word 'harass'. So it is a case of whether you are being harassed because of your race—basically because of where your parents came from, what country you came from or what colour you are. I find this whole thing amazing. As I said, it is not a big issue in regional Australia with the people that I talk to. People do not stop me in the streets and say, 'Hey, you've got to fix 18C.' I welcome the government's change, because I just think those students being sued was just ridiculous. It would have put pressure on them going through the courts for such a long time. We know how the courts drag on and drag out matters. What those students have been through because they went into a laboratory is quite amazing. Let's hope the legislation proposed by the government—and I do welcome it—will, for a start, simplify it. Many of those involved in court cases over the wording of 18C do not understand the actual meaning of it, how it is supposed to work or how it is supposed to protect or whatever. It is confusing. As I said, Ms Triggs, from the Human Rights Commission, has even been confused about it.

Simplifying 18C is a good thing. We can all understand a simple law. The word 'harass' is not a watering down of the law. I just call that simplifying the law and making it better for Australians to understand. There are those who follow this issue. Many people email me and say, 'Wacka, we've got to fix this up; it's wrong.' And if it is wrong—and I believe it is wrong—it needs to be fixed up. As I said, it is not the biggest issue in rural Australia. Building some dams, building railway lines, growing more export markets and keeping good cattle prices continuing are issues—yes. Cattle prices are under a bit of pressure at the moment. They did get extremely high, and perhaps that was a bit of a worry in itself. These are the issues that regional Australians are concerned about. We have a good wool market, with record wool prices. It is good to see that after decades of devastating wool prices, following the crash back in the early nineties. Cattle prices are improving. I will say it again: those opposite banned the live exports to Indonesia—a crazy decision that had such a devastating effect on regional Australia. We saw cattle being transported by road from the top of Western Australia right down to Inverell, in the district I live in. How cruel it is to have to transport the stock so far because of the loss of the export markets. They are the real issues.

Let's hope that we can continue to grow those markets and grow our trade agreements. Former Minister Andrew Robb did a magnificent job setting up the free trade agreements, and now we are benefiting from those agreements with better prices for our commodities. Because of rural Australia, we saw growth in the last quarter for our agriculture exports. Things are exciting. I just hope the regions that are very dry at the moment do get some gentle rains, especially in Queensland, where once again they are looking to the skies for some relief. I commend the government for simplifying this whole law. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of Senator Brandis's comments in answers today about the government's proposed amendment of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I was thinking earlier about how, when you come down to Canberra, you sometimes miss your kids and you think about the kind of parent you are and about the kind of child that you want to raise. I was thinking about the fact that pretty much everyone in this chamber, no matter what party they are from, would be trying, as a parent, to teach their kids how important it is to be respectful of other people. I do not think that there are many values that you can teach your children that are more important in setting them up in life than the need to be respectful of other people, no matter who they are, no matter what country they are from and no matter what colour their skin—

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

I agree.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Senator Williams agrees with me, just as I agreed with much of what he said. So it is therefore very disappointing that the effect of the changes that the government is seeking to make here will be to create an environment in which people can be much less respectful of others on the basis of their race. It will remove the current prohibition on people offending, insulting or humiliating others on the basis of their race. That is the effect of the change that the government is proposing to make.

Currently, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act prevents people from racially offending, insulting or humiliating others. I would have thought that in a modern society and in a respectful society all of us could agree that it is not appropriate and that it should be against the law for people to racially offend, insult or humiliate others. But of course we know that over the last few months a rump of the extreme right of the Liberal Party, in cahoots with certain media outlets and certain weird barristers from Queensland who shuffle around in duffel coats chasing shadows and making up straw men, have gotten together to make this a crusade which, unfortunately, this weak Prime Minister has jumped on. The effect of this change is to say that it will be okay in future for people to racially offend, insult and humiliate others, and what will not be okay is for people to racially harass others. Of course people should not be able to racially harass others, and that is exactly what the legislation as it currently stands is designed to prevent.

What we really have here is yet another pathetic backdown from a Prime Minister who used to believe in something. He used to believe in climate change, and now he has given in to the extreme right of his party. He used to believe in marriage equality, and he has now given in to the extreme right of his party. He used to believe in strong laws that prevented people from racially offending, insulting and humiliating people, but again he has had to cave in to the right wing of his party. It is no wonder that Australians have really given up any hope for this Prime Minister. If you are going to lead a country you actually have to be able to show people that you believe in something and that you will stand and fight for it. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who continually caves in to his extreme right.

None of us knows exactly what it is going to mean to racially harass someone; we will have to wait and see how courts interpret that. All we really have to go on so far is the comments of one of the people who has really driven this campaign, the so-called journalist Andrew Bolt. He was on Sky last night and he speculated that perhaps what would amount to racial harassment is making offensive, insulting and humiliating racial remarks about people maybe five times. Is that correct? Is what we are saying here that it is okay to racially humiliate someone once, it is okay to do it twice, it is okay to do it three or four times, but it is not until you get to five times that it amounts to something that is actually unacceptable in society? I disagree with that. I think it is actually unacceptable to racially humiliate, offend or insult someone once, let alone five times.

In the limited time I have left, I just want to deal quickly with a couple of the false arguments that have been put up by the government for why this change is needed. Firstly, they have said that the current law means that people cannot make small insulting remarks without breaking the law. That is just not true. No lesser person than the current High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel has said that the current law only applies to conduct that has 'profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights'. It is just wrong that this law is restraining small insults.

The free speech argument is also wrong. The current section 18D of the act provides lots of exemption for people making fair political comment, and that would remain in place now. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.