Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday the Coalition to Advance Multiculturalism, a collection of 20 organisations, including the Council of Christians and Jews and the Vietnamese community in Australia, said:

The Turnbull Government's decision to pursue the watering down of protections against racial vilification is utterly shameful and at odds with the principles of multicultural Australia.

Why is the government ignoring the concerns of the very communities that section 18C was legislated to protect?

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

Senator Kitching, the government is not ignoring anybody's concerns, but the government does believe that we should be able to have a sensible and respectful debate in this country about the question of how we best write our antivilification laws to protect the very people that vilification laws are meant to protect. The government is proposing to do that by including in the list of prohibited conduct 'racial harassment'.

I am afraid, Senator Kitching, that in this debate there has been so much noise, so much hysteria and too little listening to each other's point of view. I do not know any serious person who has studied section 18C as it is currently written who would defend it as the best possible way in which this law could be expressed—not Professor Gillian Triggs, the President of the Human Rights Commission, who has said that the law could be improved; not Professor Rosalind Croucher, the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, who has recommended that the law be improved; not Professor George Williams, a former Labor Party preselection candidate and Dean of the University of New South Wales Law School, who suggested that the law be improved; not David Marr, a journalist who is not a supporter of my side of politics, who has suggested that the law be improved; and not Professor Sarah Joseph from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, who has suggested that the law be improved.

We listen to every contribution to this debate, but please do not tell me, Senator Kitching, that there is anyone in this debate who says that we should not have a serious discussion about how to write antivilification laws as effectively as possible.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, supplementary question.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that you have just insulted the Coalition to Advance Multiculturalism, I quote one of your colleagues. Senator Abetz said: 'We're not snowflakes. As human beings we do need to be more robust.' Does the minister agree with Senator Abetz that Australians fearing offensive, insulting or humiliating comments based on their race just need to toughen up?

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

Senator Kitching, I can tell you that in the course of considering reform to section 18C I have met with many ethnic community councils, many ethnic community leaders, and not one of them—not a single one of them—has said to me: 'Under no circumstances should you reconsider the language of section 18C.' There are a variety of points about this, as we know, and that is fair enough in a liberal democracy, but please do not tell me that there is any representative of any ethnic community in Australia who has said: 'Under no circumstances should an Australian government even think about trying to rewrite section 18C to make it as effective as possible.' I do not think you will find a single representative of any ethnic community group, Senator Kitching, who would disagree with the government's view that including a prohibition against racial harassment is a good reform measure.

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

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the minister told Australians who are the subject of racial abuse that if they find comments 'offensive or bruising' that is just what a democracy is. Could the minister outline how much racial abuse does democracy require?

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

Senator Kitching, I think we all know that in a free society and in a democracy there is room for robust debate. That is why, by the way, some 20 years or so ago the High Court acknowledged an implied constitutional freedom of political communication for the very reason, as the High Court acknowledged in a series of decisions, that it is necessarily implicit in the nature of Australia as a parliamentary democracy that there should actually be a constitutionally recognised protection of freedom of speech. Do you dispute that, Senator Kitching? Of course our society is based on freedom of speech, but it is based on other values as well, including tolerance, including mutual respect and including, as the government is seeking to do, strong and robust antivilification laws.