Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I am in the chamber I will give a shout out to the delegation of New Zealand parliamentarians that is in my office right now.

Yesterday, I was reminding people about what ANTaR had written in their submission to the inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They said:

Far from being a theoretical discussion, racial discrimination has a very real impact on mental health and wellbeing for First Peoples.

They said in their necessarily quick submission to the inquiry held last Friday:

Racism and discrimination contribute to poor mental health, increased self-harm and suicide, decreased school attendance and lower workplace productivity, and participation in society more broadly.

When releasing their reconciliation barometer earlier this year, which they do every two years—so this is using 2016 data—ANTaR said that the government needs to start looking at first people's lived experience of racism and leave the RDA protections untouched.

The national reconciliation barometer showed an increase of racism experienced by our first peoples. They found that racism towards first peoples has increased from 39 per cent to 46 per cent since the last barometer, in 2014. I remind people that the latest data was collected in 2016. That is a significant increase in racism towards our first peoples. They found that one in three Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had experienced verbal racial abuse in the six months before the survey. The anecdotal feedback from a number of Aboriginal people I have spoken to is that it certainly has not gotten any better since then. In fact, it may have gotten even worse. Given the negative impact on health and wellbeing of racism, if we are going to close the gap it is absolutely vital that we maintain protections against racial discrimination. In other words, racial discrimination has a direct impact on people's wellbeing, and we need to address that if we are ever going to close the gap by our agreed target dates.

To say the community's support for retaining the current wording of section 18C is overwhelming is an understatement. We know that racial discrimination and vilification remains a major challenge in Australia, and the barometer pointed that out. If anything, that challenge is growing. The Scanlon Foundation's most recent report found that the proportion of Australians who have experienced racism in the past 12 months has grown to 20 per cent. That is one in five Australians.

We only have to observe the general tenor of comments online, under news reports, on social media and in forums, to see that a significant number of people in this country currently feel very free to unleash racist, bigoted, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic diatribes in public. We only need to read one of the countless experiences recounted in submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into section 18C to know that racism remains an ever-present problem. We must be especially vigilant now that a significant proportion of our community has been energised by the election of Donald Trump. People have responded by feeling much freer to be racist in that environment.

If you have never experienced racial discrimination or abuse, you only need to listen to those Australians who have. They know how utterly destructive to a person's sense of self it is. If you listen to people, listen to their experiences, you know it is having a significant impact on that person's sense of self. To be so often attacked about something as arbitrary as the colour of your skin or the clothes that you wear or the country of one's birth is just utter nonsense. So it is in this environment of rampant xenophobia, of racist trolls, of growing experiences of racial abuse and discrimination—you only had to listen to Senator McKim reading out those tweets under #freedomofspeech last week to know of the dozens and dozens and dozens of experiences that people were reporting of abuse. We only have to look at those experiences to ask the question: what does the government seek to achieve by these changes? Why are they trying to make it easier for people to be racist? Why are they sending this signal to the community that it is okay to launch racist diatribes at people?

These zombie measures should not succeed. We should finally put them to bed—in fact kill them off. Why does the other side of this chamber, the government, continue to pretend this is about freedom of speech? I really do not understand just how it is that people like the Attorney-General, like Senator Abetz, like Senator Paterson want to be able to say what they already say. Let us take their argument at face value and assume that they are all currently being muzzled by swathes of politically correct red tape that prevents them from truly expressing themselves. I am not aware of any principle of libertarianism that seriously proposes that freedom of speech is or should be an absolute or unfettered freedom. We have always accepted legitimate restrictions on our freedom to say exactly what we would like to say. We all seem to accept laws that protect us against reputational damage—libel or slander—or that protect us from violent threats. The basic principle of libertarianism is that we should all be free to do or say whatever we want to the point that our expression of freedoms cause genuine and unjustified harm to others, such as, for example, what I described about the impact on our First People's mental health and wellbeing.

I do not think anybody seriously accepts that racism does not cause genuine harm. As I have outlined, it clearly does. That is the whole basis of the Racial Discrimination Act itself, which is our acquittal of our international legal duty under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is genuinely difficult to decipher the argument of the small number of right-wingers in their own little echo chamber that want these changes. We hear them froth and rant about the words 'insult' and 'offend' and declare that there is no right to not be offended, that causing offence is central to the principle of freedom of speech. But they ignore the fact that the words 'insult' and 'offend' have been applied very strictly in the courts. It seems to me they just want to be able to make unfettered racial comments and to abuse people.

Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on the planet. Multiculturalism is what we do better than anywhere else in the world. It is our great advantage; it underpins so much of our ongoing peace and prosperity. It is a large part of why so many people want to visit here and why so many people in fact want to come here to live, to migrate here. We have just started a Senate committee inquiry into how we can strengthen Australia's multiculturalism even further. We know, even before it starts, that multiculturalism is an asset for all of us.

In technical terms, sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act established the legal case to be applied by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the courts when assessing complaints about racial hate speech. But section 18C is also highly symbolic. It represents our continued commitment to multicultural harmony. It sets the absolute minimum conditions for public engagement in our overwhelmingly successful multicultural society. I just do not see why this small group of hard Right, Dad's Army opponents of 18C want so badly to attack it. Hundreds of people have spoken to us in the last few weeks and months about racial hate speech, and about the continued need to protect Australians against it. I am sure every senator in this place has in fact had many phone calls and emails about that, and other personal communications and meetings.

There are some people in our country who are genuinely afraid of the tenor of some of our public debate and where it might lead in the future—and, again, I have had multiple conversations exactly along those lines. There are many, many Australians who have experienced just what can happen when racial hate speech gets out of control. Rightly, Australia is seen as an oasis of peace away from the hatreds that have been allowed by the political leaders to bubble up in other places. Our Racial Discrimination Act underpins that peace. For very good reason it had bipartisan and then tripartisan support until very recently, when this small group of people who do not represent broader Australia and their opinion, as has been evidenced by many, sprung up, with the support of some media outlets, to run their campaign to undermine our Racial Discrimination Act.

But we Greens will not support it. We will stand in opposition to their moves to undermine the act and undermine section 18C. We will stand firm with millions of Australians who live and work and breathe our wonderful, multicultural reality every day. We will continue to work with them to strengthen our community, not divide our community. We say no to racism, and we say no to the changes that in fact will undermine our multicultural society.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had the privilege of contributing to this debate a number of times in this chamber, so I will not go over too much old ground today. I will not go over the arguments about the importance of freedom of speech. I will not go over the evidence that the administration of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by the Human Rights Commission has been incredibly flawed. I will not go over the recent cases that show the harmful impact that this law has had on journalists, cartoonists and students.

There are two things I want to do today. The first is to respond to an argument made by Senator Siewert which has become a bit of a catchcry of those who are opposed to changes to 18C. They like to ask, 'What is it that you would like to say that you cannot say under this law but you would be able to say if the law changes?' It is a question they ask often. It is a question that they assert is not answered and has not been answered, but the only way they could have that view is if they have not been actually listening to those who have a different view in this debate, if they have not been following the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue and if they have not been following the debate closely, because this question has been answered, and I am happy to answer it today.

It is a question that Senator McKim asked at the human rights committee hearings, which we very much enjoyed participating in together around Australia. He asked it at every hearing that I attended except one. That was the Brisbane hearing. Senator McKim was not able to be in Brisbane for the Brisbane hearing, and that was a shame because there was a witness at the Brisbane hearing who had a very good answer to that question. His name is Alex Wood. He is a former student at the Queensland University of Technology, and he was one of the respondents in the QUT case. Alex had heard this question was being asked, including in the hearings, so he came prepared to answer it. Unfortunately, he was not asked it by Senator McKim, because he was not able to be there, but he was asked it and he did answer it. He said that the thing that he would like to say that he is not able to say under the current law is that his university, QUT, is 'stopping segregation with segregation'. That is in fact what Alex Wood did say on Facebook on the day that he was kicked out of an unsigned Indigenous computer lab at his university.

It took Alex 3½ years and a torturous legal process, which has disrupted his life, had a severe financial impact on him and his family and the other people involved in this case and potentially damaged his career, to finally establish—after this torturous 3½-year process—that in fact he could legally say that, but not without going through that process. If there are those that argue that we should not be able to say that, fair enough, but I think it is very difficult to argue that it is fair or necessary that someone like Alex Wood should have to go through that process to establish that he should be able to say that.

The main purpose for my contribution to the debate today on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is to address one issue that I have not specifically addressed in detail in this debate so far, and that is the argument that those in favour of changing 18C, such as me, fit certain demographic attributes. It has been pointed out that some of us who are advocates of change to 18C are white. It has also been pointed out that some of us are men. And it has also been pointed out that we are men of a certain age. I think I may fail to qualify on that final category, but I certainly qualify on the former two categories. It is said that, because we are white men of a certain age, we have not experienced discrimination, and therefore we should be much more careful in advocating this change.

It is something I have considered carefully, and I have two ways in which I would like to respond to that. The first is that freedom of speech is a right of every Australian, and every Australian has an equal right to participate in the debate about free speech and to advocate sincerely for their point of view on free speech. Your gender, your race and your age have no bearing on your right as an Australian citizen to participate freely in public debate.

The second thing I would say, though, is that a corollary of this argument is the statement that is often made that ethnic communities are united in opposition to changing this law. It is certainly true, and we heard during the committee process, that many of the peak bodies that represent ethnic communities are opposed to and are concerned about changes to this law. But I believe it is incredibly patronising and condescending to not realise that there is active debate within many ethnic communities, as there is in every community on every public policy issue, and that there is a great diversity of opinion within ethnic communities on the desirability of change to 18C. I believe that those who are saying that ethnic communities are united and monolithic in opposition to this either have not been paying attention and have not been listening to the ethnic voices who are in favour of change or have decided to ignore those voices because they are inconvenient for their arguments. Either way, I think that is wrong and does not do these advocates of change justice.

That is one thing I would like to correct today by taking the opportunity to read into the Hansard the words of some of those people who have experienced discrimination in their lives, have been on the receiving end of racism, but nevertheless strongly and passionately support freedom of speech and strongly support the case for change in this law. The first is a gentleman by the name of Gideon Rozner. In the interests of full disclosure: he is an employee of my former employer, the Institute of Public Affairs, and a friend. He is also a Jewish man. He wrote in the Herald Sun in December 2016:

… many Jewish Australians, myself included, share the same concerns about 18C as an increasing number of people in the wider community. Specifically, that banning forms of expression merely because they are "insulting" or "offensive" is inherently incompatible with the right to free speech.

He goes on to say:

… the open and free society that we enjoy is as fragile as it is precious. It relies on fundamental civil and political rights, not least of all the freedom of speech.

Robert Magid, the publisher of The Australian Jewish News, wrote on 15 September 2016 in his publication:

The point about free speech, for which, over centuries, many have died, is the right to disagree. As Bob Dylan sings: 'You're right from your side and I'm right from mine.'

One man's bigot is another man's courageous defender of what many decent people think and feel. It is in the nature of satirists, comedians and cartoonists to exaggerate and very often offend. Inevitably they end up being called bigots as in the recent case of Bill Leak, one of the least bigoted people I know. Should these critics of society be looking over their shoulder to see whether the sheriff is about to take them on a perp walk?

To them it is Section 18C which is intimidating. It is not only the legal definition that is in question, but the public perception that criticising behaviour of another people in a way that might insult and offend can lead to litigation.

Dr David Adler was a powerful witness before the human rights committee. He is a member of the Sydney Jewish community, and he believes that Jewish communal organisations have not reflected well the diversity of opinion in his community. He cited, in support of his evidence, other prominent Jews who feel same way as he does, such as lawyer Geoffrey Bloch; former judge Jim Spigelman; and the New South Wales Rabbinical Council, which has been concerned about this law and is in favour of changing it. He wrote in The Spectator Australiaon 11 March this year:

What 18C does is to unreasonably constrain free speech in a manner inconsistent with Jewish theology, academic development and values. There is no evidence that 18C is an effective tool in changing a trend of anti-Semitism (there are much more effective tools) and such a law risks serious adverse consequences.

There have also been a number of prominent Indigenous advocates for change, such as Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon and Wesley Aird. I want to quote two advocates for change who I think have contributed very powerfully to this debate. Kerryn Pholi, who is an Indigenous woman, also writing in The Spectator Australia on 26 April 2014, said:

I hereby demand freedom from protection from this thing we call 'racial vilification'. I do not wish to be protected from the opinions of others. I demand the right to hear the views that other people may wish to express about me. I want this because I do not see how forcing others to shield their true opinion is of any benefit to me. Rather, it infantilises me by suggesting that I cannot handle the ugliness of life. Silencing or concealing the ugliness also exposes me to unnecessary risk, since if all others were free to express their views openly, I could at least make more informed choices about whom to associate with and whom to avoid.

Jacinta Price, a councillor on the Alice Springs Town Council, wrote in The Australian on2 February this year:

The Racial Discrimination Act's 18C treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can't speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non-Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us, especially the problems of our own making that are killing us.

…   …   …

The way to beat racism is through debate, not the closing down of debate.

Another advocate for change is Irene Moss. She is a significant advocate for change for a number of reasons. Yes, she is a woman with Chinese heritage, but she is also a former Race Discrimination Commissioner, and it was her inquiry in 1991 that in part led to the adoption of section 18C and is often cited as a justification for the adoption of section 18C. But Irene Moss does not agree. She believes that 18C is in need of reform. In an interview with Chris Merritt from The Australianon 6 March this year, she said, of the law adopted in 1994:

It had 'ignored the inquiry’s warnings that an offence which was drafted too broadly could lead to trivial complaints and confusion'. 'The current controversy with respect to section 18C was predictable,' she said.

She is in favour of reform which removes 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' from the law, which is strikingly similar to what the government has proposed. She said:

'In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility …

'I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.'

Opponents of the bill might feel it is easy to dismiss my view or the views of Senator Smith or other colleagues in this place who do not meet the right demographic criteria, according to them, in order to have the right to participate in this debate. They may disagree with people like Irene Moss, Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon, Wesley Aird, Jacinta Price, Kerryn Pholi, Gideon Rozner, Robert Magid, David Adler, Geoffrey Bloch and Jim Spigelman, and they are entitled to. But they should at least have the decency to recognise the great diversity of thought and opinion within our ethnic communities.

I would encourage them to consider that, around the world, limitations on free speech generally have been aimed at minority groups, not at benefiting them, and have come at their great cost many times throughout history. Freedom of speech—the ability to freely debate ideas and stand up for the things we believe in—has always been the best guarantor of a tolerant and harmonious liberal society. It is what has helped Australia be as tolerant, harmonious and prosperous as it is today. It is what helps other countries around the world which share our values reflect that same tolerance and harmony.

I believe that the government's bill strikes the right balance in ensuring that we do have free speech—that people, whatever their background, have the right to stand up and say what they believe and argue sincerely in favour of it, and that it remains unlawful to abuse someone on the basis of their race, as it should be.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the government's Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. However, I do find it somewhat ironic that its title is 'human rights legislation'. Labor made its choice long ago, and that choice was to stand with multicultural Australia and stand against bigotry. It was Labor that introduced both section 18C and section 18D, and we will always stand firm in protecting them.

Sadly, our Prime Minister seems to have made another decision. He has chosen to fundamentally undermine the provisions of sections 18C and 18D, despite his promises not to. All this will do is make it easier for people to insult or humiliate others on the basis of their race. It is galling to me that the government chose Harmony Day last week to outline their plans to weaken protections against racism in our country.

Sections 18C and 18D were introduced by the Keating government in response to a number of reports on racial violence, including the national inquiry into racist violence by former race discrimination commissioner Irene Moss and the great Australian lawyer Ron Castan QC. It was also in response to royal commissions and other inquiries into our international obligations.

These provisions are designed to capture not only harassment but also broader campaigns and factions of racial humiliation offence and abuse. Sections 18C and 18D have been established for all the right reasons, and 18C has embodied Australia's condemnation of racial vilification and protected our society from the poisonous effects of hate speech, so they should be protected. At the same time, 18D has operated to protect free speech by providing exemptions for artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.

It is notable to me that, as Professor Triggs highlighted to our Senate committee last week, with the Bill Leak cartoon that has been so much of the motivating force that has brought us into this debate today an 18D application was never made. It is clear that the government in putting this legislation forward has not been listening to people who have experienced racism.

The idea of moving to a definition of 'harassment' seems to have been put forward by, as far as I can tell, only one member of the joint committee that inquired into this matter. The fact we have this legislation before us at all is a testament to the fact that the coalition has been held captive to a right-wing agenda that is completely out of touch with the lived experience of Australians who have experienced racism and, for that matter, with the priorities of the broader Australian population, who would prefer their politicians to be thinking about creating jobs, quality public services, education and training, and more. Section 18C has been an ideological obsession of the right wing of the Liberal-National Party, which sadly our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is too weak to do anything about. Let us not forget that Tony Abbott also tried to introduce these laws when he was Prime Minister.

Labor, on the other hand, I am proud to say is steadfast in its position. Section 18C is good law. It has functioned well for two decades and it has protected our multicultural society. I remember growing up in the 1980s, when the word 'boong' was commonly directed at my Indigenous school peers. It is little wonder to me that they did not stay at school. I remember racist slurs against my Asian friends on the bus: 'gook, chink' were, again, all too common. I remain ashamed that I did not have the courage at the time to stand up for them. I have certainly witnessed how recently xenophobia and Islamophobia, some of it emanating from this very place, are driving racist sentiment and with it racist actions towards other Australians.

We have as much need as ever for the protections of 18C. We are all innately equal as people—however, this law undermines the principle of our universal equality as people in a couple of really problematic ways. The idea that 'harassment' is better than or even, frankly, equal to 'offend, insult and humiliate' as a legal test is ill founded. As the many Indigenous people and people of multicultural background have said, 'What is it you would like to be able to say that you're currently prohibited from saying?'

While the government may be able to draw on some high-profile individuals, as Senator Paterson highlighted, of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds who are supporting changes in the law, I can highlight to the Senate today that that is not the case when it comes to mainstream ethnic and Indigenous Australia. Dr Soutphommasane said to estimates last week:

There will no doubt be a variety of opinion within many communities on this issue, as there would be on any other issue of public policy, but it is my considered assessment that, of representative community organisations covering multicultural, ethnic and Indigenous communities, an overwhelming number of them, if not uniformly the case, would not be comfortable with any weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Currently, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act reads:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

The changing in the wording in the legislation before us reduces the protections that are afforded to victims of racial discrimination and racial hate speech by narrowing the scope of behaviour that may constitute offending conduct. The Federal Court has recognised the difficulties with 18C applying to 'offensive, insulting and humiliating acts' by interpreting it so that it only applies to 'profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.'

I remain equally confused as to why the government might choose try to remove the word 'humiliate' when controversy around this matter has generally only focused on the words 'offend and insult'. It is also unclear why the word 'harass' has been chosen instead of other options. We have had no opportunity to canvass these issues through the Senate committee. Legal practitioners and organisations have expressed their concern about how the word 'harass' will be defined. The Law Council made a plea to our committee raising concerns that it could denote proximity between two people and would not cover situations where racial hate speech is, for example, used in a media article. The changes would also result in a period of uncertainty about the scope of the new provision, which, I feel, is an irresponsible move by government.

In the new so-called objective test in 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, we see the introduction of a 'reasonable member of the Australian community' as the objective standard for determining a breach of 18C, instead of the test that the court currently applies of 'whether an act is reasonably likely in all of the circumstances' to have the relevant effect. Changing the test defining whether someone ought reasonably feel harassed by someone's actions from the target group at whom the insult or offensive action was directed at to a so-called 'ordinary person' who is not part of the group at whom the offence was directed is an extraordinary thing to do.

On that note, I think it is worth highlighting that it is all too commonplace in our Australian society that racist talk does take place. I note specifically that it takes place often while the group that is targeted by such talk is not in the room. If no-one feels offended or takes offence on behalf of those who were the target of the offence, does that represent the new 'ordinary person' test? The court should, I feel, be able to take into account the relevant context—namely, the fact that racial vilification is directed towards people of a particular race. They need to be able to take this into account when assessing whether it is reasonably likely that a group would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated. So the changes to 18C combined with the change in this objective test are a very insidious combination.

I want to highlight some of the other changes in this bill—namely, the complaints-handling processes of the Australian Human Rights Commission as set out in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. These changes have not been subject to proper consultation. The bill was introduced last Wednesday and it was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am a member. We tried to extend the time that we would have as a committee to look at these changes, but we were deprived of that opportunity. Our capacity within the Senate committees to look at these issues has been fundamentally undermined.

No Indigenous Australian representative bodies were invited to appear before our committee. I did ask Senator Macdonald on Thursday evening—and I gave him forewarning that I wanted Indigenous organisations to be able to appear. However, the government majority deprived them of being able to give their evidence. This is a disgraceful example of arrogance on the part of this out-of-touch government. I note that both the Human Rights Law Centre and FECCA gave evidence at the hearing. Both groups talked about the importance of 18C and 18D. They gave a range of insightful evidence to the committee, including evidence relating to increased levels of racism, vilification and verbal abuse that has been occurring in the community—frankly, talk about 18C is giving licence to racist hate speech in the community.

The public hearings also drew our attention to evidence from the Human Rights Commission about the flaws in the procedural changes. I note that the government has committed to amending schedule 2. I am not yet at liberty to see what changes the government is making. This is, again, a real demonstration of what is a fundamentally flawed and rushed process. In evidence before the committee, I saw an exchange between Senator Brandis and Professor Triggs, where essentially they were working out whether they would have time to sit down and look at further amendments to the bill. That kind of process, where discussion between the Human Rights Commission and the government itself was still taking place, has deprived members of the Senate of being able to consider what amendments they are putting forward. I do not know yet whether agreement has even be reached.

The commission highlighted how a number of recommendations would result in additional red tape and would likely cause additional delay and added costs to parties to complaints, as well as impeding access to justice in relation to meritorious complaints. I know Labor has put forward amendments. We are yet to see if the Human Rights Commission's concerns will be addressed by the government and how our amendments may marry into the amendments put forward by the government. Again, it is another example of a flawed process. What I note here is that these changes will impact on thousands of complainants and respondents who use the commission's complaint-handling processes. Here again we have had a tiny bit of consultation around 18C. The previous inquiry that took place—I did not see consultation with disability groups, LGBTI organisations or women's organisations, who will all be affected. The universal changes to this legislation will change the nature of the way these things are managed for everybody, across all grounds. There has been no consultation with people about those matters.

These issues need to be resolved, otherwise the government should withdraw them. I look forward to advice to the chamber about where these issues are up to. I can only hope that, after this legislation is dealt with, the folly of those on the other side in relation to this matter will be laid to rest. It is a sad fact that, while those on the other side of the chamber keep the door open on this debate, we are also opening the door to people's self-proclaimed—as Senator Brandis would put it—right to be a bigot. The effectiveness of our Racial Discrimination Act is founded on the fact that there is no such right. As a result of there being no such right, racist actions and racist language in our community is curtailed. The idea that racists have anything legitimate to say that deserves to be heard must be done away with once and for all. There can never and never should be a right in this country to be a bigot. I do not want my son to grow up in a country where people have the right to offend, insult or humiliate another person based on their race or frankly any other attribute.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the comments today, I, like a lot of Australians, thought to myself: why are we taking up so much precious time in this parliament debating this issue? It is because political correctness over the years has shut us down from having an opinion or a say. The thought police have intervened. The lefties are out there shutting us down from having an opinion on most things, and this is where section 18C has come into play.

All I hear in this chamber are the words 'racist comments'. Let us define what 'racist' means. It means that you believe your race to be superior to another. Making a comment on an issue does not necessarily mean you are racist. They use that word because it is supposed to shut down debate. They have used it against me so many times over the years that it has become boring, and they do it without really debating the issue or what I am trying to say.

A lot of people think that because you are a white Australian you do not have racist comments directed at you. You might be surprised, but I have had racist comments said to me. But I let it go over the top of my head; it is water off a duck's back. It happened in 1996, when I went out to have a meeting with some Aboriginal elders. The media turned up, even though I had said the media were not to be there. I wanted to sit down and talk with these Aboriginal people. But it was set up and the media turned up. When I approached the elders, they called me 'white trash' and 'a pig in mud'. I was abused. I just turned and walked away. But next day The Courier Mail wrote up the story with 'white trash' and the 7.30 Report reported the story. It was filmed. I approached them and said, 'What do you think about this?'—not at the time, because I did not worry about it, but in a conversation later. They said 'So what?' There was no issue about it and they could not care less.

I think what has happened over time is that there is reverse racism in Australia. Australians are feeling the brunt of this and are fed up. That is why they are talking on talkback radio and amongst themselves. They are fed up with where the lefties have this debate going. Yes, there have been issues from the new migrants that came to Australia, especially after the Second World War. I have heard the terms that the Italians were called, such as eyeties or wogs. Those references were made. I actually mixed with Greeks and Italians at the fish markets. They were great mates of mine. We had talks and discussions. The older generation just chuckled and laughed it off. They got on and worked in with the Australians. Now it has gotten to the point in this country where you cannot even look sideways at anyone. We are all from different cultural backgrounds and races, but this is pushing us into segregation. That is how I see it. We have to start working together and stop being so precious that we cannot say anything to anyone.

Section 18C has the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate'. The other side says, 'What do you want to say that you can't say now?' But that is missing the whole point. It is not about what you want to say; it is about the right to have an opinion. I can look at someone of another culture and say, 'I don't particularly like your cultural dance,' or, 'I don't particularly like your cultural dress.' That might be a personal opinion that I have and they may be offended by it. Am I therefore, because of my personal opinion, supposed to be dragged before the Human Rights Commission under the Racial Discrimination Act? We have to get real here and stop putting these ideas into people's heads.

I go back to the students from the University of Queensland. Three students turned up to use a room which had a sign saying 'Aboriginals only'. That is racial discrimination in the first place. Why didn't those students go and report the head of the university, or whoever put that sign up, for racial discrimination in the first place? They did not. But they were accused. That is segregation. That is division. That is what is happening in our country. Australians have had at gutful and are sick and tired of it. This needs to change. Treat everyone on an individual basis, not on the basis of their race or the colour of their skin, and we will have a much more harmonious country.

A case was laid against me in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by the Aboriginals. I will fill you in on why this happened. I stood for election in 1996. I was elected after being thrown out of the Liberal Party. Next day The Australianrang me up to for an interview. I did the interview and called for equality for all Australians. I made reference to the Greeks, the Italians and everyone. The Australian printed a headline the next day saying that Hanson refused to represent the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For 18 months I was accused of this. It was a headline on the front page. It came up many times in interviews.

That was not the case. I was taken before the court and Sir Ronald Wilson, after listening to the full tape, came down with the finding that I never said anything racist whatsoever and that I was calling for equality for all Australians. A lot of people would not even think this to be the case, but I have worked with Aboriginal people over the years. I have had many come to my office asking for assistance. I work with these groups. I will work for, fight for and defend anyone, regardless of their cultural background. That is my job as a member of this parliament and a representative of the people of Queensland, and I have always been of that opinion. In light of that, I am also a very proud Australian. I am proud of my culture and my heritage. I welcome people who come to this country. I always have done. That is the way my parents brought me up. I respect people based not on their race or who they are but on how I find them and how they treat me.

I go back to these university students. The claim was that the woman or the teacher wanted $250,000. After the stressful time that the students went through and the cost to them of legal representation, she asked for $250,000. What was that going to do? How was that going to appease it? I see this as a process of monetary gain. That is what it is and that is what a lot of people using this are all about. It is for monetary gain, no other reason.

I had Gillian Triggs, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, in my office. She said to me: 'Section 18C needs to change. It needs to go.' She deals with this. She admits it. I think about section 18C. Sheikh Shady has said that AIDS is divine punishment and that women would be hung by their breasts in hell. What about those comments? Do I hear people from the Left screaming about these comments? I remember hearing one time that, with the way women dress in this country, it is nothing but a meat market and they deserve to be raped. Where is the Left, where are the greenies and where are the others screaming that this should not be said?

What about signs of people speaking out against us the Australian people? Those on the other side of this house and on the crossbench are screaming for the rights of migrants and everyone else who comes to this country but they do not stand up for the Australian people. I do not want to see division in this country. I want to see everyone treated equally, on the same basis, and on a needs basis. That is what a lot of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders want as well. The laws that have been brought in here over the years are causing segregation and separatism. That is what we do not want. They do not want it. They do not want to be treated any differently. If we continue to make laws with that division, it is not going to be right or good for us. We are all Australians together.

I will go back to the wording in the bill. The wording is 'offend, insult, humiliate'. As I said earlier, anyone can take offence. Everyone has a different opinion on what may offend them. A lot of people get offended very easily, so then they are going to make their complaints. It says 'insult' and 'humiliate'. I support changing the words to 'harass' and 'intimidate'. We do not want that happening in our country. Some people do need that protection. I think the words 'offend, insult, humiliate' are too broad and it is up to the individual about how they feel about it.

This all comes down to the pub test: how does the average Aussie feel about this? That is what it is all about. I may raise issues that many Australians talk about in their kitchens and around their barbecues. They talk about them but do not come out openly and say anything. These are the people who voted for One Nation in the last election. That is why there are now four One Nation senators on the crossbench. If I were saying things that were offensive to the Australian people, we would not be here. They would not have voted for us. I represent a good majority of the Australian people. To have gotten three seats in the upper house in Western Australia just a couple of weeks ago is a clear indication that people want representation from One Nation.

We are here with an open mind, not to shut down the people but to give everyone from whatever race the right to have a say and an opinion and be part of this country, to join in, to be Australians. That is what we stand for. Shutting us down is not the answer. You call us racists and bigots. As I said, the word 'racist' means to believe your race to be superior to another. I have never, ever said that. I challenge anyone to show me anything I have said that has been racist. You use the word 'bigot'. There are many people—and I am sure everyone in this chamber—who are a bigot in their own way, because you can be intolerant of another person's culture or religious beliefs. That is the human race. That is who we are because we are proud of our cultural background. It is about having respect.

Debate interrupted.