Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. In addition to at least 16 occasions on which the Prime Minister ruled out his government amending laws preventing hate speech, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, said yesterday: 'The most vociferous person in the coalition against changes to 18C was Malcolm Turnbull.' Minister, when did the Prime Minister decide to stop being a pest to those seeking to amend section 18C and instead join them?

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

Have you done something to your hair, Senator Dastyari? You have been to a stylist, and it is a good look.

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

You are jealous!

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

I am jealous, Senator Cameron. I wish the same could be said of me, but it is not able to be!

Senator Dastyari, I did not see Ms Credlin's comments, but I will take at face value what you say. First of all, on no occasion—not 16 occasions, not one occasion—did Prime Minister Abbott or Prime Minister Turnbull say that the question of reform of section 18C would never be revisited. That was never ever said. They said, at various times, that the issue had been taken off the table. I remember Mr Abbott saying that—and that was the case. I remember Mr Turnbull saying during the election campaign last year that it was not a big priority for the government—and that was the case too. Nevertheless, the suggestion that there was ever a commitment that the matter would never be revisited is false.

In relation to Mr Turnbull, I know what his views on this matter are, and they have never changed. The fact is that Mr Turnbull has an admirable and lifelong commitment to the protection of freedom of speech. It was Mr Turnbull who as a young man acted for the British former intelligence officer Peter Wright in successfully taking proceedings against the United Kingdom government, which was seeking to prevent the publication by Mr Peter Wright—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was in the Spycatcher case, and he broke the law.

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

That's right, the Spycatcher case—a very famous case in Australian history. Mr Turnbull has been consistent on this. Not only— (Time expired)

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

Senator Dastyari, a supplementary question.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The empirically driven senator for Queensland Malcolm Roberts has said: 'We're very happy that the government is actually starting to follow One Nation's lead.' Minister, why is the Turnbull government following One Nation instead of standing up against racism?

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

Senator Dastyari, indulge me and allow me to finish my last sentence. I was interrupted by the bell. Mr Turnbull not only has a commitment to freedom of speech stretching back during the time of his prime ministership and as a minister in Mr Abbott's government; he has a lifelong and distinguished commitment to freedom of speech, as anyone who has followed his career can say.

Coming to your question, the government is not following anyone's lead. We have made a decision because section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, in the manner in which it is currently written, is a bad law because it does not effectively protect against racial vilification. It actually omits racial harassment as one of the grounds of protection and it imposes unnecessary restrictions upon freedom of speech. (Time expired)

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

Senator Dastyari, a final supplementary question.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to One Nation voters in Queensland, my good friend Senator James Paterson said: 'We've got to get those voters back home to us, if they previously voted for us, and I think this is one way we can do that.' Minister, is the Turnbull government so desperate that it is willing to sell out Australian ethnic communities just to get votes from One Nation?

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

We want Australia's racial vilification laws to be as effective as possible. That is why we have introduced a new standard of harassment, which was meant to be in the legislation introduced many years ago by former Attorney-General Lavarch but was for some unexplained reason omitted. Senator Dastyari, the question you have to answer is this: what is the conduct that you would prohibit that would not be prohibited by the government's new test? What is the conduct that you would prohibit that would not be prohibited by a prohibition on intimidation or harassment? If you look at the racial anti-vilification statutes of every like-minded country in the world, the two key concepts are harassment and intimidation. In this case, harassment, for the first time, will be outlawed by the Turnbull government. (Time expired)